Hi Tony,
On 7/18/2023 5:11 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> Yes, this is the idea. Thank you for considering it. Something else
>> to consider that may make this even cleaner/simpler would be to review
>> struct rdt_domain and struct rdt_hw_domain members for "monitor" vs "control"
>> usage. These structs could potentially be split further into separate
>> "control" and "monitor" variants. For example, "struct rdt_domain" split into
>> "struct rdt_ctrl_domain" and "struct rdt_mon_domain". If there is a clean
>> split then resctrl can always create two lists with the unnecessary duplication
>> eliminated when two domain lists are created. This would also
>> eliminate the need to scatter ctrl_scope == mon_scope checks throughout.
>
> You might like what I'm doing in the "resctrl2" re-write[1]. Arch independent code
> that maintains the domain lists for a resource via a cpuhp notifier just has this
> for the domain structure:
>
> struct resctrl_domain {
> struct list_head list;
> struct cpumask cpu_mask;
> int id;
> int cache_size;
> };
>
> Each module managing a resource decides what extra information it wants to
> carry in the domain. So the above structure is common to all, but it is followed
> by whatever the resource module wants. E.g. the CBM masks for each CLOSid
> for the CAT module. The module tells core code the size to allocate.
hmmm ... what I am *hearing* you say is that the goodness from the
rewrite can be added to resctrl? :)
> "cache_size" is only there because the cache topology bits needed to discover
> sizes of caches aren't exported. Both the "size" file and pseudo-locking need
> to know the size.
>
> It's also possible that you may hate it. There is zero sharing of resource structures
> even if they have the same scope. This is because all modules are independently
> loadable.
Apologies but I am still unable to understand the problem statement that
motivates the rewrite.
Reinette
