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 S933304AbdCGUlq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:41:46 -0500
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:43723 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1756238AbdCGUli (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:41:38 -0500
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:22:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
cc: 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>,
        "davidcc@google.com" <davidcc@google.com>,
        "eranian@google.com" <eranian@google.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements
In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F6120F0A9@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703072119300.4299@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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Luck, Tony 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?
> 
> We'd like to have measurement groups use a single RMID ... if we
> allowed tasks from different CAT groups in the same measurement
> group we wouldn't be able to split the numbers back to report the
> right overall total for each of the CAT groups.

Right. And the same applies to CPU measurements. If we have threads from 3
CAT groups running on a CPU then the aggregate value (except for bandwidth
which can be computed by software) is useless.

Thanks,

	tglx