From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934130AbdC3O7w (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:59:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36688 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933462AbdC3O7v (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:59:51 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 837B8624B1 Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jolsa@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 837B8624B1 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:59:47 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa To: Fenghua Yu Cc: Jiri Olsa , Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith , Shaohua Li , lkml , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/intel_rdt: Add cpus_list rdtgroup file Message-ID: <20170330145947.GA13846@krava> References: <20170329150948.4981-1-jolsa@kernel.org> <20170329160825.GA24537@linux.intel.com> <20170329161600.GA2506@krava> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170329161600.GA2506@krava> 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 [10.5.110.39]); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:59:50 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 06:16:00PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > 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 is there any tool available for this actualy? thanks, jirka