[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611131125040.3501@nanos>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:58:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/46] perf/x86/intel/cmt: add per-package locks
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > I still have not figured out why all of this is necessary and unfortunately
> > there is no real coherent epxlanation of the overall design. The cover
> > letter is not really helpful either.
>
> Note taken. I'll work on that.
The first thing which would be helpful is a proper explanation of what you
want to achieve and why, w/o going into design and implementation details.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists