Hi Reinette, On 2024-03-19 at 10:51:14 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: >What remains is the user interface that continues to gather opinions [3]. These new >discussions were prompted by user space needing a way to determine if resctrl supports >SNC. This started by using the "size" file but thinking about it more user space could >also look at whether the number of L3 control domains are different from the number >of L3 monitoring domains? I am adding Maciej for his opinion (please also include him >in future versions of this series). By this do you mean comparing the contents of main "schemata" file with the number of mon_L3_* files? >Apart from the user space requirement to know if SNC is supported by resctrl there >is also the interface with which user space obtains the monitoring data. >James highlighted [1] that the interface used in this series uses existing files to >represent different content, and can thus be considered as "broken". It is not obvious >to me how to "fix" this. Should we continue to explore interfaces like [2] that >attempts to add SNC support into resctrl or should the message continue to be >that SNC "plays havoc with the RDT monitoring features" and users wanting to use >SNC and RDT at the same time are expected to adapt to the peculiar interface ... >or is the preference that after this series "SNC and RDT are compatible" and >thus presented with an intuitive interface? I kind of liked this idea [1]. Hiding SNC related information behind some not obvious text parsing and size comparisons might eliminate any ease of use for userspace applications. But I agree with you [2] that it's hard to predict the future for this interface and any potential problems with setting up this file structure. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/SJ1PR11MB608309F47C00F964E16205D6FC2D2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/7f15a700-f23a-48f9-b335-13ea1735ad84@xxxxxxxxx/ -- Kind regards Maciej Wieczór-Retman
