[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170331155305.GD24537@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:53:05 -0700
From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/intel_rdt: Add cpus_list rdtgroup file
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:47:52AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, 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?
>
> Yes, because a lot of people including me do not care about these tools at
> all. Making it easy to read and write from the command line is the first
> thing to do.
Sure, you are right. Hopefully adding a bit more explanation in
the commit message will be helpful.
Thanks.
-Fenghua
Powered by blists - more mailing lists