Hi Tony,
On 10/24/23 18:43, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> Is this customer requirement ?
>
> Any customer using the mba_MBps feedback mount option will need this
> on platforms that don't support local bandwidth measurement.
>
>> What do you mean by " If local bandwidth measurement is not available" ?
>> Is the hardware supports only total bandwidth and not local?
>
> There's going to be an Intel CPU that will only provide "total" bandwidth.
ok.
Why dont you use get_mbm_state which is already available instead of
writing another function(get_mbm_data).
You can pass evtid, rmid, domain information. Decide the evtid based on
what is available. I think that will make code simpler.
>
> The CPUID enumeration in (CPUID.(EAX=0FH, ECX=1H) ).EDX{2}
> will be "0" indicating that the local mbm monitor event is not supported.
>
>> It can get real ugly if we try to handle one special case.
>
> Hard to predict the future (I didn't see this coming, or I'd have had Vikas
> implement the fallback in the original mba_MBps code). But I don't believe
> this will be a one-off special case.
>
> I'm also wondering why this feedback loop picked "local" rather than "total".
> I dug into the e-mail archives, and I don't see any discussion. There's just
> an RFC series, and then the v2 series was applied with a few small suggestions
> from Thomas to make things cleaner..
May be MSR write which feedback loop does only has local effect. This will
be interesting to know.
--
Thanks
Babu Moger
