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 S1753717AbdC2QQG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:16:06 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56162 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752646AbdC2QQE (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:16:04 -0400
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 68DB07F415
Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jolsa@redhat.com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 68DB07F415
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:16:00 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/intel_rdt: Add cpus_list rdtgroup file
Message-ID: <20170329161600.GA2506@krava>
References: <20170329150948.4981-1-jolsa@kernel.org>
 <20170329160825.GA24537@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170329160825.GA24537@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:16:03 +0000 (UTC)
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 29, 2017 at 09:08:26AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:09:48PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > While playing with the resctrl interface I found it much
> > easier to deal with cpumask list rather than just regular
> > cpumask.
> 
> Could you please explain specifically why and when it's easier
> to deal with cpumask list? In programming cases, cpumask
> and cpumask list are almost same. And people are working
> on higher level tools to control resctrl. The tools can
> hide detailed regular cpumask or cpumask list and user
> doesn't need to care lower level format of cpumask. So
> is it really useful to add cpus_list?


well I'm not aware about any such tool so I used resctrl
interface directly, and in that case it was much simpler

jirka