[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6485574e-1405-49c1-90f9-1955ac2777ce@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:51:50 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghuay@...dia.com>, "Maciej
Wieczor-Retman" <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>, Peter Newman
<peternewman@...gle.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Babu Moger
<babu.moger@....com>, Drew Fustini <dfustini@...libre.com>, Dave Martin
<Dave.Martin@....com>, Anil Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
CC: <x86@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/30] x86,fs/resctrl telemetry monitoring
Tony,
On 6/26/25 9:49 AM, Tony Luck wrote:
> Background
> ----------
>
> Telemetry features are being implemented in conjunction with the
> IA32_PQR_ASSOC.RMID value on each logical CPU. This is used to send
> counts for various events to a collector in a nearby OOBMSM device to be
> accumulated with counts for each <RMID, event> pair received from other
> CPUs. Cores send event counts when the RMID value changes, or after each
> 2ms elapsed time.
To start a review of this jumbo series and find that the *first* [1]
(straight forward) request from previous review has not been addressed is
demoralizing. I was hoping that the previous version's discussions would result
in review feedback either addressed or discussed (never ignored). I
cannot imagine how requesting OOBMSM to be expanded can be invalid though.
Reinette
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/b8ddce03-65c0-4420-b30d-e43c54943667@intel.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists