Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030484AbbKDPv3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:51:29 -0500 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:50379 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932323AbbKDPv1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:51:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:50:35 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Luiz Capitulino cc: Fenghua Yu , H Peter Anvin , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel , x86 , Vikas Shivappa , Marcelo Tosatti , tj@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V15 00/11] x86: Intel Cache Allocation Technology Support In-Reply-To: <20151104103542.6180911b@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <1443766185-61618-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <20151104094227.5aafdf2c@redhat.com> <20151104101233.3cc79e15@redhat.com> <20151104103542.6180911b@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001,URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2351 Lines: 61 On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:28:04 +0100 (CET) > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:57:41 +0100 (CET) > > > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:09:34 -0700 > > > > > Fenghua Yu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This series has some preparatory patches and Intel cache allocation > > > > > > support. > > > > > > > > > > Ping? What's the status of this series? > > > > > > > > We still need to agree on the user space interface which is the > > > > hardest part of it.... > > > > > > My understanding is that two interfaces have been proposed: the cgroups > > > one and an API based on syscalls or ioctls. > > > > > > Are those proposals mutual exclusive? What about having the cgroups one > > > merged IFF it's useful, and having the syscall API later if really > > > needed? > > > > > > I don't want to make the wrong decision, but the cgroups interface is > > > here. Holding it while we discuss a perfect interface that doesn't > > > even exist will just do a bad service for users. > > > > Well, no. We do not just introduce a random user space ABI simply > > because we have to support it forever. > > I don't think it's random, it's in discussion for a long time and > Peter seems to be in favor of it. It does not matter whether it's in discussion for a long time. We have requests for functionality which cannot be covered with that interface. > But I'm all for progress here whatever route we take. In that regard, > what's your opinion on the best way to move forward? Talk to the people in your very company, who are having a different opinion and requests for stuff which cannot be handled by the current proposed interface. You had yourself a list of things you want to see handled. So feel free to come up with patches which implement that instead of telling us that your company needs it badly for some reason. Thanks, tglx -- 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/