From: "tarumizu.kohei@fujitsu.com" <tarumizu.kohei@fujitsu.com>
To: 'Dave Hansen' <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] docs: ABI: Add sysfs documentation interface of hardware prefetch driver
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:41:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <OSBPR01MB20374AB09F302F5CB0C63EED80929@OSBPR01MB2037.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d9c31c0a-a0ce-452d-7f7d-df535eb5e918@intel.com>
> Ahh, so you really do intend the l2 directory to be for *all* the L2
> prefetchers?
Yes, we intend to create the l2 directory for *all* the L2 prefetchers
(i.e. "L2 Hardware Prefetcher Disable" and "L2 Adjacent Cache Line
Prefetcher Disable).
> I guess that's OK, but will folks ever want to do "L2
> Hardware Prefetcher Disable", but not "L2 Adjacent Cache Line Prefetcher
> Disable"?
There are people who actually tested the performance improvement[1].
[1]https://github.com/xmrig/xmrig/issues/1433#issuecomment-572126184
In this report, write 5 to MSR 0x1a4 (i.e. "L2 Hardware Prefetcher
Disable", but not "L2 Adjacent Cache Line Prefetcher Disable")
on i7-5930K for best performance. If such tuning is possible, it may
be useful for some people.
We describe how to deal these parameters in our sysfs interface at
"[RFC & Future plan]" section in the cover letter(0/5), but we can't
come up with any good ideas.
We thought that the sysfs interface should be generic and common,
and avoid showing architecture-dependent specifications.
We have considered the Proposal B that multiple hardware prefetch
types in one enable attribute file at above section. However, in
order to use it, we have to know the register specification, so we
think it is not appropriate.
Do you have any idea how to represent architecture-dependent
specifications in sysfs interface?
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "tarumizu.kohei@fujitsu.com" <tarumizu.kohei@fujitsu.com>
To: 'Dave Hansen' <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] docs: ABI: Add sysfs documentation interface of hardware prefetch driver
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:41:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <OSBPR01MB20374AB09F302F5CB0C63EED80929@OSBPR01MB2037.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d9c31c0a-a0ce-452d-7f7d-df535eb5e918@intel.com>
> Ahh, so you really do intend the l2 directory to be for *all* the L2
> prefetchers?
Yes, we intend to create the l2 directory for *all* the L2 prefetchers
(i.e. "L2 Hardware Prefetcher Disable" and "L2 Adjacent Cache Line
Prefetcher Disable).
> I guess that's OK, but will folks ever want to do "L2
> Hardware Prefetcher Disable", but not "L2 Adjacent Cache Line Prefetcher
> Disable"?
There are people who actually tested the performance improvement[1].
[1]https://github.com/xmrig/xmrig/issues/1433#issuecomment-572126184
In this report, write 5 to MSR 0x1a4 (i.e. "L2 Hardware Prefetcher
Disable", but not "L2 Adjacent Cache Line Prefetcher Disable")
on i7-5930K for best performance. If such tuning is possible, it may
be useful for some people.
We describe how to deal these parameters in our sysfs interface at
"[RFC & Future plan]" section in the cover letter(0/5), but we can't
come up with any good ideas.
We thought that the sysfs interface should be generic and common,
and avoid showing architecture-dependent specifications.
We have considered the Proposal B that multiple hardware prefetch
types in one enable attribute file at above section. However, in
order to use it, we have to know the register specification, so we
think it is not appropriate.
Do you have any idea how to represent architecture-dependent
specifications in sysfs interface?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-09 9:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-04 5:21 [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Add hardware prefetch driver for A64FX and Intel processors Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-04 5:21 ` Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-04 5:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] driver: hwpf: Add hardware prefetch core driver register/unregister functions Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-04 5:21 ` Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-04 5:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] driver: hwpf: Add support for A64FX to hardware prefetch driver Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-04 5:21 ` Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-04 5:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] driver: hwpf: Add support for Intel " Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-04 5:21 ` Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-08 1:51 ` Dave Hansen
2021-11-08 1:51 ` Dave Hansen
2021-11-09 9:44 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-09 9:44 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-04 5:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/5] driver: hwpf: Add Kconfig/Makefile to build " Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-04 5:21 ` Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-04 5:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] docs: ABI: Add sysfs documentation interface of " Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-04 5:21 ` Kohei Tarumizu
2021-11-04 14:55 ` Dave Hansen
2021-11-04 14:55 ` Dave Hansen
2021-11-08 1:29 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-08 1:29 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-08 1:49 ` Dave Hansen
2021-11-08 1:49 ` Dave Hansen
2021-11-09 9:41 ` tarumizu.kohei [this message]
2021-11-09 9:41 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-09 17:44 ` Dave Hansen
2021-11-09 17:44 ` Dave Hansen
2021-11-10 9:25 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-10 9:25 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-04 15:13 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Add hardware prefetch driver for A64FX and Intel processors Borislav Petkov
2021-11-04 15:13 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-11-08 2:17 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-08 2:17 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-10 8:34 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-11-10 8:34 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-11-18 6:14 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-18 6:14 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-18 7:09 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-18 7:09 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-12-06 9:30 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-12-06 9:30 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-04 17:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 17:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-08 2:36 ` tarumizu.kohei
2021-11-08 2:36 ` tarumizu.kohei
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=OSBPR01MB20374AB09F302F5CB0C63EED80929@OSBPR01MB2037.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com \
--to=tarumizu.kohei@fujitsu.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.