Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1594986

Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements

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

Show all headers | View raw


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 | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


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