From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932476AbbERTTy (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2015 15:19:54 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:63573 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932168AbbERTTv (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2015 15:19:51 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,454,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="727929022" Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 12:18:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Vikas Shivappa X-X-Sender: vikas@vshiva-Udesk To: Thomas Gleixner cc: Vikas Shivappa , Vikas Shivappa , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, matt.fleming@intel.com, will.auld@intel.com, peter.zijlstra@intel.com, h.peter.anvin@intel.com, kanaka.d.juvva@intel.com, mtosatti@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] x86/intel_rdt: Implement scheduling support for Intel RDT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1431370976-31115-1-git-send-email-vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com> <1431370976-31115-5-git-send-email-vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 18 May 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2015, Vikas Shivappa wrote: >> On Fri, 15 May 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Mon, 11 May 2015, Vikas Shivappa wrote: >>>> + /* >>>> + * This needs to be fixed >>>> + * to cache the whole PQR instead of just CLOSid. >>>> + * PQR has closid in high 32 bits and CQM-RMID in low 10 bits. >>>> + * Should not write a 0 to the low 10 bits of PQR >>>> + * and corrupt RMID. >>> >>> And why is this not fixed __BEFORE__ this patch? You can do the >>> changes to struct intel_cqm_state in a seperate patch and then do the >>> proper implementation from the beginning instead of providing a half >>> broken variant which gets replaced in the next patch. >> >> Ok , can fix both items in your comments. Reason I had it seperately is that >> the cache affects both cmt and cache allocation patches. > > And that's the wrong reason. Sure it affects both, but we first > prepare the changes to the existing code and then build new stuff on > top of it not the other way round. Building the roof before the > basement is almost never a good idea. Ok , will merge all scheduing changes to one patch if you think thats better. Thanks, Vikas > > Thanks, > > tglx > > >