[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151116162657.GX17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:26:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Yu Fenghua <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ioctl based CAT interface
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:18:42AM -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> Peter, I'm giving a serious try on the cgroups patches and would be
> glad to be enlightened if I'm missing something. But I don't see how
> what you're proposing would solve the problem.
>
> My understanding of CAT is that if I want to reserve 80% of the cache
> in socket-1 to $thread-A I also have to:
>
> 1. Create another mask reserving 20% of the cache in socket-1
> 2. Assign that mask to all other threads that may run in socket-1
>
> If I'm right about this, then when a task with 20% reservation migrates
> to socket-2 it will only access 20% of the cache there even though there
> should be no restrictions in socket-2's cache.
Uh what? Task-A was bound to socket-1, it will never get to socket-2.
Clearly I'm not getting these examples you're throwing around.
Also, I explicitly do not want tasks that can migrate between sockets to
have different performance profiles across those sockets.
--
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