[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <zyt7i26wcmgb4cvqisy7shnbplcxh6rnhw5qfaocsendsymuvk@hpr2fvhibfmr>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 19:44:10 -0500
From: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, "Moger, Babu" <bmoger@....com>,
"Dave.Martin@....com" <Dave.Martin@....com>, "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
"babu.moger@....com" <babu.moger@....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>, "sean@...e.io" <sean@...e.io>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/resctrl: Add "*" shorthand to set minimum
io_alloc CBM for all domains
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 02:59:59PM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> If I remember correctly the idea was to limit this feature to io_alloc to
> avoid needing to deal with L2 asymmetric domains [1].
Hi Reinette,
You are quite right; I am in complete agreement with your assessment. The
primary intention behind limiting the scope to io_alloc was indeed to avoid
the complexities associated with L2 asymmetric domains.
Are we all in alignment to focus this feature entirely on io_alloc for the
time being? If so, I will be pleased to prepare a follow-up series that
reflects this consensus once our wider discussion has concluded.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/SJ1PR11MB60833A27A1B8057CDDFB1B2BFCCFA@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com/
>
Kind regards,
--
Aaron Tomlin
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists