Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:43:02 -0200 | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] ioctl based CAT interface |
| |
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 03:27:40PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:51:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:39:33PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > + * * one tcrid entry can be in different locations > > > + * in different sockets. > > > > NAK on that without cpuset integration. > > > > I do not want freely migratable tasks having radically different > > performance profiles depending on which CPU they land. > > Please expand on what "cpuset integration" means, operationally. > I hope it does not mean "i prefer cgroups as an interface", > because that does not mean much to me. > > So you are saying this should be based on cgroups? Have you seen the > cgroups proposal and the issues with it, that have been posted?
Subject: cat cgroup interface proposal (non hierarchical) was Re: [PATCH V15 00/11] x86: Intel Cache Allocation Technology Support
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/700
| |