From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751882AbeB0VBW (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:01:22 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:14186 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751663AbeB0VBV (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:01:21 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,402,1515484800"; d="scan'208";a="20650303" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 13/22] x86/intel_rdt: Support schemata write - pseudo-locking core To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: fenghua.yu@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, gavin.hindman@intel.com, vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: From: Reinette Chatre Message-ID: <85c96e41-5a54-d3dd-bda4-d8ef9c28b1d8@intel.com> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:01:18 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Thomas, On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Let's look at the existing crtl/mon groups which are each represented by a > directory already. > > - Adding a 'size' file to the ctrl groups would be a natural extension > which makes sense for regular cache allocations as well. > I would like to clarify how you envision the value of "size" computed. A resource group may have several resources associated with it. Some of these resources may indeed overlap, for example, if there is L2 and L3 CAT capable resources on the system. Similarly when CDP is enabled, there would be overlap in bitmasks referring to the same cache locations but treated as different resources. Indeed, there may in the future be some resources that are capable of allocation but not cache specifically that could also be handled within a single resource group. Summarizing all of these cases with a single "size" associated with the resource group does not seem straightforward to me. Reinette