[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ee7771e4-3768-456c-9990-fcd59b4f74af@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 09:46:01 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, <babu.moger@....com>
CC: "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>, "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "mingo@...hat.com"
<mingo@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "x86@...nel.org"
<x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "paulmck@...nel.org"
<paulmck@...nel.org>, "rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "yanjiewtw@...il.com" <yanjiewtw@...il.com>,
"kim.phillips@....com" <kim.phillips@....com>, "lukas.bulwahn@...il.com"
<lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>, "leitao@...ian.org"
<leitao@...ian.org>, "jpoimboe@...nel.org" <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, "Edgecombe,
Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com"
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, "kan.liang@...ux.intel.com"
<kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, "daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com"
<daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "sandipan.das@....com" <sandipan.das@....com>,
"ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com" <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
"peternewman@...gle.com" <peternewman@...gle.com>, "Wieczor-Retman, Maciej"
<maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 08/25] x86/resctrl: Introduce interface to display
number of monitoring counters
Hi Tony,
On 10/11/24 2:36 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 03:49:48PM -0500, Moger, Babu wrote:
>
> I.e. the user who chose this simply gave up being able to
> read total bandwidth on domain 1, but didn't get an extra
> counter in exchange for this sacrifice. That doesn't seem
> like a good deal.
As Babu mentioned earlier, this seems equivalent to the existing
CLOSid management. For example, if a user assigns only CPUs
from one domain to a resource group, it does not free up the
CLOSID to create a new resource group dedicated to other domain(s).
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists