Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1594986
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements |
| Date | 2017-03-08 10:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tiGoh-4Ft-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <titAK-46W-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <titAK-46W-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <titAK-46W-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <tiwIi-6lb-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Stephane,
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
> >> That's all nice and good, but I still have no coherent explanation why
> >> measuring across allocation domains makes sense.
> >
> > Is this in reaction to this one?
> >
> >>> 5) Put multiple threads into a single measurement group
> >
> > If we fix it to say "threads from the same CAT group" does it fix things?
> >
> Inside a CAT partition, there may be multiple tasks split into different
> cgroups. We need the ability to monitor groups of tasks individually
> within that CAT partition. I think this is what this bullet is about.
I completely understand that. That's fine and I never debated that one, but
the requirements list is too vague about what you want to measure.
> >>> 5) Put multiple threads into a single measurement group
That can be:
A) threads within a CAT group
B) threads which belong to different CAT groups
A) is fine. B) does not make any sense to me
Same applies for per CPU measurements.
Thanks,
tglx
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
RE: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> - 2017-03-07 21:10 +0100
RE: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-07 21:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> - 2017-03-08 00:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements Shivappa Vikas <vikas.shivappa@intel.com> - 2017-03-08 01:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-08 10:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com> - 2017-03-08 19:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-09 12:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com> - 2017-03-09 19:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-10 16:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com> - 2017-03-11 03:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-13 20:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com> - 2017-03-13 21:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-13 21:30 +0100
csiph-web