linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements

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: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F6120F0A9@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:04:38 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     "Shivappa, Vikas" <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
        "davidcc@...gle.com" <davidcc@...gle.com>,
        "eranian@...gle.com" <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements

> That's all nice and good, but I still have no coherent explanation why
> measuring across allocation domains makes sense.

Is this in reaction to this one?

>> 5)      Put multiple threads into a single measurement group

If we fix it to say "threads from the same CAT group" does it fix things?

We'd like to have measurement groups use a single RMID ... if we
allowed tasks from different CAT groups in the same measurement
group we wouldn't be able to split the numbers back to report the
right overall total for each of the CAT groups.

-Tony