On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 9:04 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:25:35PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:20:56PM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
> > This patch is based on Martin's cache branch.
> >
> > This patch amends the cache bank capability as follow:
> >
> > <cache>
> > <bank id='0' level='3' type='unified'
size='15360' unit='KiB' cpus='0-5'>
> > <control min='768' unit='KiB' type='unified'
nallocations='4'/>
> > </bank>
> >
>
>
> Why do we need to report 'type' on both bank & control elements. Are
they
> really expected to have different values ?
>
There’s a discussion from
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-March/msg01689.html
I think I made a mistake here, it should be ’scope’ instead of ’type’ here.
No matter what’s it should be, at least we need to identify if the host enabled CDP for L3
cache or not.
If enabled CDP on host, the resctrl looks like this:
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat schemata
L3DATA:0=fffff;1=fffff
L3CODE:0=fffff;1=fffff
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat info/L3
L3CODE/ L3DATA/
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat info/L3DATA/num_closids
8
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat info/L3CODE/num_closids
8
as you can see that num_closids are divided into 2 part (compared to 16 without CDP),
but other info are still same
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat info/L3CODE/cbm_mask
fffff
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat info/L3CODE/min_cbm_bits
1
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat info/L3DATA/cbm_mask
fffff
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat info/L3DATA/min_cbm_bits
1
------------------------------------------
below output are from disable CDP:
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat schemata
L3:0=fffff;1=fffff
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat info/L3/
cbm_mask min_cbm_bits num_closids
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat info/L3/cbm_mask
fffff
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat info/L3/min_cbm_bits
1
root@s2600wt:/sys/fs/resctrl# cat info/L3/num_closids
16
That's one of my questions I had way back in some of the previous
discussions. Did not get the answer. I suspect there is a reason to
whether CDP is enabled or not and it is not just the type of the cache
bank itself. If it is, then CDP makes no sense for us at all, actually
for anyone who has access to cache information and that would mean bad
design of that thing. And that's not something I would expect from this
functionality.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
> --
> |:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
> |:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
> |:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
>
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list(a)redhat.com (mailto:libvir-list@redhat.com)
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list