Hello, On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 01:22:57PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > I wager that this assertion is wrong. Having individual applications > program their own cache mask is not going to be the most common > scenario. Only in very specific situations would you trust an > application to do that.
As I wrote in the other reply, I don't buy that. The above only holds if you exclude use cases where this feature is used by multiple threads of an application and I can't see a single reason why such uses would be excluded. > A much more likely use case is having the sysadmin carve up the cache > for a workload which may include multiple, uncooperating applications. > > Yes, a programmable interface would be useful, but only for a limited > set of workloads. I don't think it's how most people are going to want > to use this hardware technology. It's actually the other way around. You can achieve most of what cgroups can do with programmable interface albeit with some awkwardness. The other direction is a lot more heavier and painful. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
