> >> I.e. the user who chose this simply gave up being able to > >> read total bandwidth on domain 1, but didn't get an extra > >> counter in exchange for this sacrifice. That doesn't seem > >> like a good deal. > > > > As Babu mentioned earlier, this seems equivalent to the existing > > CLOSid management. For example, if a user assigns only CPUs > > from one domain to a resource group, it does not free up the > > CLOSID to create a new resource group dedicated to other domain(s). I hadn't considered the case where a user is assigning CPUs to resctrl groups instead of assigning tasks. With that context this makes sense to me now. Thanks. > Thanks for the confirmation here. > > I was wondering if this works differently on Intel. I was trying to figure > out on 2 socket intel system if we can create two separate resctrl groups > sharing the same CLOSID (one group using CLOSID 1 on socket 0 and another > group CLOSID 1 socket 1). No. We cannot do that. > > Even though hardware supports separate allocation for each domain, resctrl > design does not support that. So CLOSIDs and counters are blanket assigned across all domains. I understand that now. Back to my question of why complicate code and resctrl files by providing a mechanism to enable event counters differently per-domain. "0=tl;1=_" requires allocation of the same counters as "0=tl;1=tl" or "0=t;1=l" What advantage does it have over skipping the per-domain list and just providing a single value for all domains? You clearly expect this will be a common user request since you implemented the "*" means apply to all domains. -Tony
