On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:03:23PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: > 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.
So either the user needs to set that mode _and_ set cpu masks, or the user needs to use cpusets and set masks, same difference to me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
