From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753860AbdCHR6d (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:58:33 -0500
Received: from mail-ua0-f171.google.com ([209.85.217.171]:35189 "EHLO
        mail-ua0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750770AbdCHR6c (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:58:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703080927260.3521@nanos>
References: <1488908964-30261-1-git-send-email-vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703072011080.4299@nanos> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F6120F0A9@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <CABPqkBQaOt3_0EN+6D8sJ4erA6dFW-P7ECCgdWu6UxFaaJ-eyg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703080927260.3521@nanos>
From: David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:58:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CALcN6mgs=_wkav=reLsYOQW1N9Na=x9xKmM5GWvh4=0n_XD3Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>,
        "Shivappa, Vikas" <vikas.shivappa@intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>, "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        "Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> Stephane,
>
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
>> >> That's all nice and good, but I still have no coherent explanation why
>> >> measuring across allocation domains makes sense.
>> >
>> > Is this in reaction to this one?
>> >
>> >>> 5)      Put multiple threads into a single measurement group
>> >
>> > If we fix it to say "threads from the same CAT group" does it fix things?
>> >
>> Inside a CAT partition, there may be multiple tasks split into different
>> cgroups.  We need the ability to monitor groups of tasks individually
>> within that CAT partition. I think this is what this bullet is about.
>
> I completely understand that. That's fine and I never debated that one, but
> the requirements list is too vague about what you want to measure.
>
>> >>> 5)      Put multiple threads into a single measurement group
>
> That can be:
>
>      A) threads within a CAT group
>
>      B) threads which belong to different CAT groups
>
> A) is fine. B) does not make any sense to me

It's A). As Tony suggested in a previous email, we can rephrase it to:

5) Put a subset of threads from the same CAT group into a single
measurement group.

>
> Same applies for per CPU measurements.

For CPU measurements. We need perf-like CPU filtering to support tools
that perform low overhead monitoring by polling CPU events. These
tools approximate per-cgroup/task events by reconciling CPU events
with logs of what job run when in what CPU.

>
> Thanks,
>
>         tglx