Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1594627
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | RE: [PATCH 1/1] x86/cqm: Cqm requirements |
| Date | 2017-03-07 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tiuds-4ru-19@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> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Luck, Tony 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? > > We'd like to have measurement groups use a single RMID ... if we > allowed tasks from different CAT groups in the same measurement > group we wouldn't be able to split the numbers back to report the > right overall total for each of the CAT groups. Right. And the same applies to CPU measurements. If we have threads from 3 CAT groups running on a CPU then the aggregate value (except for bandwidth which can be computed by software) is useless. 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