[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a22ae684-faf7-c4e1-226b-7eab4e9caf65@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 09:34:13 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
"x86@...nel.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-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Add support for Sub-NUMA cluster (SNC) systems
On 10/3/2023 9:16 AM, Luck, Tony 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.
The typo that I pointed out in V4 as well as V5 remains.
Not fixing something this fundamental reflects poorly on the rest
of this work.
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists