From: "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        "containers@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
	<containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86: Add Cache QoS Monitoring (CQM) support
Thread-Topic: [PATCH 0/4] x86: Add Cache QoS Monitoring (CQM) support
Thread-Index: AQHPCMNUDB9LRbk7GE+jzVKI+L/oYZp1Q6cAgABthYCAAAJHAIAAbYMAgAH1FwCAAFi3gA==
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:34:04 +0000
Message-ID: <1389026035.32504.3.camel@ppwaskie-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1388781285-18067-1-git-send-email-peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com>
	 <20140104161050.GA24306@htj.dyndns.org>
	 <1388875369.9761.25.camel@ppwaskie-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
	 <20140104225058.GC24306@htj.dyndns.org>
	 <1388899376.9761.45.camel@ppwaskie-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
	 <20140106111624.GB5623@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140106111624.GB5623@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8361F0E61CB5B54780DCF73FC0466B61@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 12:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 05:23:07AM +0000, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P wrote:
> > The CPU side is easy and clean.  When something in the software wants to
> > monitor when a particular task is scheduled and started, write whatever
> > RMID that task is assigned to (through some mechanism) to the proper MSR
> > in the CPU.  When that task is swapped out, clear the MSR to stop
> > monitoring of that RMID.  When that RMID's statistics are requested by
> > the software (through some mechanism), then the CPU's MSRs are written
> > with the RMID in question, and the value is read of what has been
> > collected so far.  In my case, I decided to use a cgroup for this
> > "mechanism" since so much of the grouping and task/group association
> > already exists and doesn't need to be rebuilt or re-invented.
> 
> This still doesn't explain why you can't use perf-cgroup for this.

I'm not completely familiar with perf-cgroup, so I looked for some
documentation for it to better understand it.  Are you referring to perf
-G to monitor an existing cgroup/all cgroups?  Or something else?  If
it's the former, I'm not following you how this would fit.

> > > In general, I'm quite strongly opposed against using cgroup as
> > > arbitrary grouping mechanism for anything other than resource control,
> > > especially given that we're moving away from multiple hierarchies.
> > 
> > Just to clarify then, would the mechanism in the cpuacct cgroup to
> > create a group off the root subsystem be considered multi-hierarchical?
> > If not, then the intent for this new cacheqos subsystem is to be
> > identical in that regard to cpuacct in the behavior.
> > 
> > This is a resource controller, it just happens to be tied to a hardware
> > resource instead of an OS resource.
> 
> No, cpuacct and perf-cgroup aren't actually controllers at all. They're
> resource monitors at best. Same with your Cache QoS Monitor, it doesn't
> control anything.

I may be using controller in a different way than you are.  Yes, the
Cache QoS Monitor is monitoring cache data.  But it is also controlling
the allocation and deallocation of RMIDs to tasks/task groups as
monitoring is enabled and disabled for those groups.  That's why I
called it a controller.  If that's not accurate, I apologize.

Cheers,
-PJ

-- 
PJ Waskiewicz				Open Source Technology Center
peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com		Intel Corp.
????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m????????????I?