[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45e81506-3c43-95ba-56a4-38e1bb2e42dc@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:23:35 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"Peter Newman" <peternewman@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, <x86@...nel.org>
CC: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Add support for Sub-NUMA cluster (SNC) systems
Hi Tony,
On 8/29/2023 4:44 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
> The Sub-NUMA cluster feature on some Intel processors partitions
> the CPUs that share an L3 cache into two or more sets. This plays
> havoc with the Resource Director Technology (RDT) monitoring features.
> Prior to this patch Intel has advised that SNC and RDT are incompatible.
>
> Some of these CPU support an MSR that can partition the RMID
> counters in the same way. This allows for monitoring features
> to be used (with the caveat that memory accesses between different
> SNC NUMA nodes may still not be counted accuratlely.
Same typo as in V4.
>
> Note that this patch series improves resctrl reporting considerably
> on systems with SNC enabled, but there will still be some anomalies
> for processes accessing memory from other sub-NUMA nodes.
I have the same question as with V4 that was not answered in that email
thread nor in this new version.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e350514e-76ed-14ea-3e74-c0852658182f@intel.com/
I stop my review of this series here.
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists