linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] x86/intel_rdt: Support cache bit mask for Intel CAT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150506080914.GU23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 6 May 2015 10:09:14 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>
Cc:	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	"Auld, Will" <will.auld@...el.com>, peter.zijlstra@...el.com,
	h.peter.anvin@...el.com,
	"Juvva, Kanaka D" <kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] x86/intel_rdt: Support cache bit mask for Intel CAT

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 10:30:15AM -0700, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
> On Sat, 2 May 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> >
> >There's CAT in your subject, make up your minds already on what you want
> >to call this stuff.
> 
> We dont have control over the names.It is clear from the patch 0/7 where its

If I read 0/n its _after_ I've read all the other patches. The thing is,
0/n should not contain anything persistent. Patches should stand on
their own.

> explained that RDT is the umbrella term and CAT is a part of it and this
> patch series is only for CAT ... It also mentions what exact section of the
> Intel manual this refers to. Is there still some lack of clarification here
> ?

But we're not implementing an umbrella right? We're implementing Cache
QoS Enforcement (CQE aka. CAT).

Why confuse things with calling it random other names?

>From what I understand the whole RDT thing is the umbrella term for
Cache QoS Monitoring and Enforcement together. CQM is implemented
elsewhere, this part is only implementing CQE.

So just call it that, calling it RDT is actively misleading, because it
explicitly does _NOT_ do the monitoring half of it.

> If its just your disliking the term thats already known.

I think its crazy to go CQE no CAT no RDT, but I could get over that in
time. But now it turns out you need _both_, and that's even more silly.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/