Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALPaoCj-zav4x6H3ffXo_O+RFan8Qb-uLy-DdtkaQTfuxY4a0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <b2e020b1-f6b2-e236-a042-4eb2fd27d8b0@intel.com> <IA1PR11MB6097236CFF891041DBA42ECB9B5F9@IA1PR11MB6097.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <Y0BhzKkksSjSeE3W@agluck-desk3.sc.intel.com> <81a7b4f6-fbb5-380e-532d-f2c1fc49b515@intel.com>
 <CALPaoCjdeRjyX5L6BBX688ZM21eMwetuL9QLF1+GEDUskGcU2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7b09fb62-e61a-65b9-a71e-ab725f527ded@intel.com> <CALPaoCg4zrODVoXF2y2b+LRYq_+jnV8yv5qB+T_3Z264cV82GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b931062a-1a70-2331-03cc-6bfa69a51bee@intel.com> <CALPaoCj8ps2YRH5T1eCRY-8MLwGi25cfbd0KNtjYXTq5baAXOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <da89ea90-8453-f848-38d1-a14195faa95e@intel.com> <a4def722-aa98-6bf9-6e77-65a9fd9bd8ca@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <a4def722-aa98-6bf9-6e77-65a9fd9bd8ca@arm.com>
From:   Peter Newman <peternewman@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2022 11:36:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CALPaoCgdk_Yaw_EQ1ca9-h5L+sHBEkm3TpT-o84TC4AxWDSsbg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] resctrl: reassigning a running container's CTRL_MON group
To:     James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Cc:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        "Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@google.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@amd.com>,
        Gaurang Upasani <gupasani@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi James,

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 5:56 PM James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> wrote:
> This would work when systems are built to look like RDT, but MPAM has other control types
> where this would have interesting behaviours.
>
> 'CPOR' is equivalent to CBM as they are both a bitmap of portions. MPAM also has 'CMAX'
> where a fraction of the cache is specified. If you create two control groups with
> different PARTIDs but the same configuration, their two 50%s of the cache could become
> 100%. CPOR can be used like this, CMAX can't.

I thought we only allocated caches with CBMs and memory bandwidth with
percentages.
I don't see how CMAX could be used when implementing resctrl's CAT
resources. Percentage
configurations are only used for MBA in resctrl today.

> Even when the controls behave in the same way, a different PARTID with the same control
> values could be regulated differently, resulting in weirdness.

Can you provide further examples?

-Peter