[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1daadc08-57e9-40b6-9a34-cfe47d368348@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:01:12 -0800
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>
CC: Amit Singh Tomar <amitsinght@...vell.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "fenghua.yu@...el.com"
<fenghua.yu@...el.com>, "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>, "George
Cherian" <gcherian@...vell.com>, "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [RFC 00/12] ARM: MPAM: add support for priority
partitioning control
On 1/11/2024 1:40 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 12:56:34PM -0800, Peter Newman wrote:
>> Hi Amit,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 1:52 AM Amit Singh Tomar <amitsinght@...vell.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) Second approach that we discussed internally is to have schemata for CPOR, and PPART separated by new line as mentioned/suggested by Peter, But it may require to tweak
>>> the ARM MPAM device driver a bit. It was kind of toss-up between 2nd and 3nd approach :), and we went with the 3rd one.
>>>
>>> L3:0=XXXX
>>> L3:0=PPART=X
>
> I'm not sure having multiple lines for the same resource makes anything
> clearer. I preferred one of the earlier proposals like this one:
>
> L3:0=XXXX,PPART=X,CCAP=X;1=YYYY,CCAP=Y
This assumes that all tools (public and private) that currently parse the schemata
file will be able to handle this additional information seamlessly.
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists