Re: [PATCH 3/7] x86/intel_rdt: Support cache bit mask for Intel CAT

From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@intel.com>,
	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>, <hpa@zytor.com>,
	<tglx@linutronix.de>, <mingo@kernel.org>, <tj@kernel.org>,
	"Auld, Will" <will.auld@intel.com>, <peter.zijlstra@intel.com>,
	<h.peter.anvin@intel.com>,
	"Juvva, Kanaka D" <kanaka.d.juvva@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] x86/intel_rdt: Support cache bit mask for Intel CAT
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 09:30:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1430901043.18017.56.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150506080914.GU23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 10:09 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> But we're not implementing an umbrella right? We're implementing Cache
> QoS Enforcement (CQE aka. CAT).
> 
> Why confuse things with calling it random other names?
> 
> From what I understand the whole RDT thing is the umbrella term for
> Cache QoS Monitoring and Enforcement together. CQM is implemented
> elsewhere, this part is only implementing CQE.
> 
> So just call it that, calling it RDT is actively misleading, because it
> explicitly does _NOT_ do the monitoring half of it.

Right, and we're already running into this problem where some of the
function names contain "rdt" and some contain "cat".

How about we go with "intel cache alloc"? We avoid the dreaded TLA-fest,
it clearly matches up with what's in the Software Developer's Manual
(Cache Allocation Technology) and it's pretty simple for people who
haven't read the SDM to understand.