[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200109174544.GC11490@chenyu-office.sh.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 01:45:45 +0800
From: Yu Chen <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND v5] x86/resctrl: Add task resctrl information
display
Hi Chris,
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 02:24:44PM +0000, Chris Down wrote:
> Chen Yu writes:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_CPU_RESCTRL
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * A task can only be part of one control
> > + * group and of one monitoring group which
> > + * is associated to that control group.
> > + * So one line is simple and clear enough:
>
> Can we please avoid using the word "control group" to describe these? It's
> extremely confusing for readers since it's exactly the same word as used for
> actual cgroups, especially since those are also a form of "resource
> control"...
>
> Doesn't official documentation refer to them as "resource groups" to avoid
> this?
Right, how abut changing change this description to:
control group -> resctrl allocation group
monitor group -> resctrl monitor group?
Yes, the Documentation/x86/resctrl_ui.rst described them as
"Resource Control feature", which is composed of allocation
and monitor, so distinguish them as above seems to be appropriate.
Thanks,
Chenyu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists