Messages in this thread | | | From | Peter Newman <> | Date | Wed, 28 Jun 2023 11:43:13 +0200 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Resctrl - rewrite (WIP) |
| |
Hi Tony,
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 5:37 AM Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote: > > Back in April I posted some RFC patches that added a "driver > registration" interface to the core resctrl code so that additional > resource control and monitor features could be added without further > complicating the core code. Link to that discussion: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230420220636.53527-1-tony.luck@intel.com/ > > Reinette gave the feedback that it would be better to base the module > registration on the resctrl resource structure. Reinette also pointed > me to work from James Morse, and some additional discussion happened > here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZG%2FMZVrWYrCHm%2Ffr@agluck-desk3/ > > James provided details on where ARM's MPAM has similarities and > differences from the Intel Resource Director Technology and AMD's > similar implementation. Drew Fustini was also pulled into that > conversation to comment on RISC-V CBQRI. > > From those discussions I believed we need a do-over on the core > /sys/fs/resctrl implementation to make it friendlier for architecural > variations. Here's what I have so far. > > ========================================================================= > | N.B. This is a general direction check. There are many obvious | > | rough edges (e.g. some careful thought needs to happen on locking | > | for the files in /sys/fs/resctrl that are "owned" by modules that | > | can be unloaded). I'm mostly looking for feedback from AMD, ARM and | > | RISCV on whether this is a foundation to build on, whether some small | > | tweaks could make it better, or if this is still going to be really | > | hard for architectures that have radical divergence from the Intel | > | model. | > =========================================================================
Thanks for working on this! I played with these changes locally on some of our machines and they seemed reasonably functional so far and was happy to see dynamically adding and removing resources working.
I will need to try working with the code to give it a serious evaluation, though. Would you consider it ready for me to try re-implementing soft RMIDs on it?
I'm also very interested in James's opinion and what this means for the ongoing MPAM upstreaming.
Thanks! -Peter
| |