From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S936314AbcJQRBP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:01:15 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:37928 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1757983AbcJQQ5Q (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:57:16 -0400
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:54:37 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Sai Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/18] x86/intel_rdt: Pick up L3/L2 RDT parameters
 from CPUID
In-Reply-To: <20161017163524.GA1808@intel.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610171853480.4991@nanos>
References: <1476497548-11169-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <1476497548-11169-9-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610171525390.9580@nanos> <20161017180655.GB8999@linux.intel.com> <20161017163524.GA1808@intel.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > 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.

Indeed.
 
> 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.

I think so. Making the user interface more intuitive is always worth it.

Thanks,

	tglx