From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932196AbeBSWYD (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:24:03 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:46789 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932130AbeBSWYC (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:24:02 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,537,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="19311349" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 01/22] x86/intel_rdt: Documentation for Cache Pseudo-Locking 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: <9416db57e47e2040a7108ba269f5432d0c91f1f7.1518443616.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com> From: Reinette Chatre Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:24:00 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 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 2/19/2018 2:19 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> It is required that the user space application self sets affinity to >> cores associated with the cache. This is also highlighted in the example >> application code (later in this patch) within the comments as well as >> the example usage of sched_setaffinity(). The enforcement done in the >> kernel code is done as a check that the user space application did so, >> no the actual affinity management. > > Right, but your documentation claims it's enforced. There is no enforcement > aside of the initial sanity check. I see the confusion. I will fix the documentation to clarify that it is a sanity check. Thank you Reinette