[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170329161600.GA2506@krava>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:16:00 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/intel_rdt: Add cpus_list rdtgroup file
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:08:26AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:09:48PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > While playing with the resctrl interface I found it much
> > easier to deal with cpumask list rather than just regular
> > cpumask.
>
> Could you please explain specifically why and when it's easier
> to deal with cpumask list? In programming cases, cpumask
> and cpumask list are almost same. And people are working
> on higher level tools to control resctrl. The tools can
> hide detailed regular cpumask or cpumask list and user
> doesn't need to care lower level format of cpumask. So
> is it really useful to add cpus_list?
well I'm not aware about any such tool so I used resctrl
interface directly, and in that case it was much simpler
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists