Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:03:23 +0000 | From | Matt Fleming <> | Subject | Re: Cache Allocation Technology Design |
| |
On Tue, 04 Nov, at 02:17:14PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I don't like extending cpusets further. Its already a weird and too big > controller. > > What is wrong with having a specific CQM controller and using it > together with cpusets where desired?
The specific problem that conflating cpusets and the CAT controller is trying to solve is that on some platforms the CLOS ID doesn't move with data that travels up the cache hierarchy, i.e. we lose the CLOS ID when data moves from LLC to L2.
I think the idea with pinning CLOS IDs to a specific cpu and any tasks that are using that ID is that it works around this problem out of the box, rather than requiring sysadmins to configure things.
-- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
| |