[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150804190324.GH17598@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:03:24 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.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, peterz@...radead.org,
matt.fleming@...el.com, will.auld@...el.com,
glenn.p.williamson@...el.com, kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] x86/intel_rdt: Add new cgroup and Class of service
management
Hello, Vikas.
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 11:50:16AM -0700, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
> I will make this more clear in the documentation - We intend this cgroup
> interface to be used by a root or superuser - more like a system
> administrator being able to control the allocation of the threads , the one
> who has the knowledge of the usage and being able to decide.
I get that this would be an easier "bolt-on" solution but isn't a good
solution by itself in the long term. As I wrote multiple times
before, this is a really bad programmable interface. Unless you're
sure that this doesn't have to be programmable for threads of an
individual applications, this is a pretty bad interface by itself.
> There is already a lot of such usage among different enterprise users at
> Intel/google/cisco etc who have been testing the patches posted to lkml and
> academically there is plenty of usage as well.
I mean, that's the tool you gave them. Of course they'd be using it
but I suspect most of them would do fine with a programmable interface
too. Again, please think of cpu affinity.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists