[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151104101233.3cc79e15@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:12:33 -0500
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, tj@...nel.org,
riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V15 00/11] x86: Intel Cache Allocation Technology
Support
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:57:41 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:09:34 -0700
> > Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This series has some preparatory patches and Intel cache allocation
> > > support.
> >
> > Ping? What's the status of this series?
>
> We still need to agree on the user space interface which is the
> hardest part of it....
My understanding is that two interfaces have been proposed: the cgroups
one and an API based on syscalls or ioctls.
Are those proposals mutual exclusive? What about having the cgroups one
merged IFF it's useful, and having the syscall API later if really
needed?
I don't want to make the wrong decision, but the cgroups interface is
here. Holding it while we discuss a perfect interface that doesn't
even exist will just do a bad service for users.
--
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