[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703072119300.4299@nanos>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:22:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
cc: Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
"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
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > 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.
Right. And the same applies to CPU measurements. If we have threads from 3
CAT groups running on a CPU then the aggregate value (except for bandwidth
which can be computed by software) is useless.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists