On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:35:38AM -0700, Chad Versace wrote: > On 07/04/2013 11:46 AM, Ben Widawsky wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 08:43:58PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote: > >>>On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 08:14:41PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>>>On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 11:02:07AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > >>>>>To make users life a little easier figuring out what they have on their > >>>>>system. > >>>>> > >>>>>Ideally, I'd really like to report LLC size, but it turned out to be a > >>>>>bit of a pain. Maybe I'll revisit it in the future. > >>>>> > >>>>>Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> > >>>> > >>>>I think a getparam for eLLC would be neat, so that usespace can use it to > >>>>tune working set sizes. > >>>>-Daniel > >>>> > >>>And I assume drop debugfs? > >> > >>Yeah, I guess the DRM_INFO message in dmesg should be good enough > >>then. For userspace's convenience we could even look into exposing the > >>LLC size with a getparam. > >>-Daniel > >> > > > >I would like to do this since we have easy access to cpuid. I know Chad > >really wants it. If you'll accept the patch, I'll write it. > > I really want to know the cache sizes. > > Actually, I didn't expect the kernel to do this for me. So, I've prototyped > a patch for Mesa to probe the cache sizes with CPUID. If the > kernel does that for Mesa, then I can likely drop my Mesa patch. > I think if we need to do the work, it makes sense to do it in the kernel since the other components can easily take advantage of it. I can even shoehorn it in to the existing LLC param. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
