Messages in this thread | | | From | "Yu, Fenghua" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v4 08/18] x86/intel_rdt: Pick up L3/L2 RDT parameters from CPUID | Date | Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:43:41 +0000 |
| |
> > > I wonder whether this is the proper abstraction level. We might as > > > well do the following: > > > > > > rdtresources[] = { > > > { > > > .name = "L3", > > > }, > > > { > > > .name = "L3Data", > > > }, > > > { > > > .name = "L3Code", > > > }, > > > > > > and enable either L3 or L3Data+L3Code. Not sure if that makes things > > > simpler, but it's definitely worth a thought or two. > > > > This way will be better than having cdp_enabled/capable for L3 and not > > for L2. And this doesn't change current userinterface design either, > > I think. > > User interface would change if you did this. The schemata file would look like > this with CDP enabled: > > # cat schemata > L3Data:0=fffff;1=fffff;2=fffff;3=fffff > L3Code:0=fffff;1=fffff;2=fffff;3=fffff > > but that is easier to read than the current: > > # cat schemata > L3:0=fffff,fffff;1=fffff,fffff;2=fffff,fffff;3=fffff,fffff > > which gives you no clue on which mask is code and which is data.
Right.
Also changing to uniform format <resname>:<id1>=cbm1;<id2>=cbm2;... is lot easier to parse schemata line in CDP mode.
So I'll change the code and doc to have two new resources: L3Data and L3Code for CDP mode.
> > We'd also end up with "info/L3Data/" and "info/L3code/" > which would be a little redundant (since the files in each would contain the > same numbers), but perhaps that is worth it to get the better schemata file. > > -Tony
| |