[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9cb3f9c9-8295-6e40-9f98-1944b9b3c59b@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:36:15 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: James Morse <james.morse@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@....com>,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
Jamie Iles <jamie@...iainc.com>,
D Scott Phillips OS <scott@...amperecomputing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/24] x86/resctrl: Split struct rdt_domain
Hi James,
On 3/12/2021 9:58 AM, James Morse wrote:
> resctrl is the defacto Linux ABI for SoC resource partitioning features.
> To support it on another architecture, it needs to be abstracted from
> the features provided by Intel RDT and AMD PQoS, and moved to /fs/.
>
> Split struct rdt_domain up too. Move everything that that is particular
s/that that/that/
> to resctrl into a new header file. resctrl code paths touching a 'hw'
> struct indicates where an abstraction is needed.
Similar to previous patch it would help to explain how this split was
chosen. For example, why are the CPUs to which a resource is associated
not considered a hardware property?
Thank you
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists