From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030633AbbKDPgF (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:36:05 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42879 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030417AbbKDPfo (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:35:44 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:35:42 -0500 From: Luiz Capitulino To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Fenghua Yu , H Peter Anvin , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel , x86 , Vikas Shivappa , Marcelo Tosatti , tj@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V15 00/11] x86: Intel Cache Allocation Technology Support Message-ID: <20151104103542.6180911b@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1443766185-61618-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <20151104094227.5aafdf2c@redhat.com> <20151104101233.3cc79e15@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:28:04 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:57:41 +0100 (CET) > > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:09:34 -0700 > > > > Fenghua Yu wrote: > > > > > > > > > This series has some preparatory patches and Intel cache allocation > > > > > support. > > > > > > > > Ping? What's the status of this series? > > > > > > We still need to agree on the user space interface which is the > > > hardest part of it.... > > > > My understanding is that two interfaces have been proposed: the cgroups > > one and an API based on syscalls or ioctls. > > > > Are those proposals mutual exclusive? What about having the cgroups one > > merged IFF it's useful, and having the syscall API later if really > > needed? > > > > I don't want to make the wrong decision, but the cgroups interface is > > here. Holding it while we discuss a perfect interface that doesn't > > even exist will just do a bad service for users. > > Well, no. We do not just introduce a random user space ABI simply > because we have to support it forever. I don't think it's random, it's in discussion for a long time and Peter seems to be in favor of it. But I'm all for progress here whatever route we take. In that regard, what's your opinion on the best way to move forward?