Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751986AbbHEMXD (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2015 08:23:03 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180]:36855 "EHLO mail-wi0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751679AbbHEMXB (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2015 08:23:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 13:22:57 +0100 From: Matt Fleming To: Tejun Heo Cc: Vikas Shivappa , Vikas Shivappa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, matt.fleming@intel.com, will.auld@intel.com, glenn.p.williamson@intel.com, kanaka.d.juvva@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] x86/intel_rdt: Add new cgroup and Class of service management Message-ID: <20150805122257.GD4332@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1435789270-27010-1-git-send-email-vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com> <1435789270-27010-6-git-send-email-vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com> <20150730194458.GD3504@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150802163157.GB32599@mtj.duckdns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150802163157.GB32599@mtj.duckdns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1325 Lines: 29 On Sun, 02 Aug, at 12:31:57PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > But we're doing it the wrong way around. You can do most of what > cgroup interface can do with systemcall-like interface with some > inconvenience. The other way doesn't really work. As I wrote in the > other reply, cgroups is a horrible programmable interface and we don't > want individual applications to interact with it directly and CAT's > use cases most definitely include each application programming its own > cache mask. 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. 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. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/