[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0ee2e67d-c1dd-489e-beef-1f255c5629d6@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:20:29 -0500
From: "Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@....com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.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
On 10/14/24 11:46, wrote:
> 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).
>
Thanks for the confirmation here.
I was wondering if this works differently on Intel. I was trying to figure
out on 2 socket intel system if we can create two separate resctrl groups
sharing the same CLOSID (one group using CLOSID 1 on socket 0 and another
group CLOSID 1 socket 1). No. We cannot do that.
Even though hardware supports separate allocation for each domain, resctrl
design does not support that.
--
Thanks
Babu Moger
Powered by blists - more mailing lists