Hi Babu, On 10/16/24 9:46 AM, Moger, Babu wrote: > On 10/16/24 10:54, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> On 10/15/24 1:40 PM, Moger, Babu wrote: >>> On 9/19/24 10:33, Reinette Chatre wrote: >>>> On 9/18/24 11:22 AM, Moger, Babu wrote: >>>>> On 9/18/24 10:27, Moger, Babu wrote: >>>>>> On 9/13/24 15:45, Reinette Chatre wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/16/24 9:16 AM, Babu Moger wrote: >>>>>>>> Detect SDCIAE`(L3 Smart Data Cache Injection Allocation Enforcement) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (stray ` char) >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> feature and initialize sdciae_capable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (This is a repeat of the discussion we had surrounding the ABMC feature.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By adding "sdciae_capable" to struct rdt_resource the "sdciae" feature >>>>>>> becomes a resctrl fs feature. Any other architecture that has a "similar >>>>>>> but perhaps not identical feature to AMD's SDCIAE" will be forced to also >>>>>>> call it "sdciae" ... sdciae seems like a marketing name to me and resctrl >>>>>>> needs something generic that could later be built on (if needed) by other >>>>>>> architectures. >>>>>> >>>>>> How about "cache_inject_capable" ? >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems generic. I will change the description also. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Basically, this feature reserves specific CLOS for SDCI cache. >>>>> >>>>> We can also name "clos_reserve_capable". >>>> >>>> Naming is always complicated. I think we should try to stay away from >>>> "clos" in a generic name since that creates problem when trying to >>>> apply it to Arm and is very specific to how AMD implements this >>>> feature. "cache_inject_capable" does sound much better to me ... >>>> it also looks like this may be more appropriate as a property >>>> of struct resctrl_cache? >>> >>> Coming back to this again, I feel 'cache_inject_capable' is kind of very >>> generic. Cache injection term is used very generically everywhere. >>> >>> Does 'cache_reserve_capable" sound good ? This is inside the resctrl >>> subsystem. We know what it is referring to. >>> >> >> Since this is inside resctrl "cache_reserve_capable" sounds like existing >> CAT to me. Could it help if the term "io" appears in the name? Something like >> "io_reserve_capable"? When this is a member of struct resctrl_cache it should >> be implicit that it refers to the cache. > > Yea. Naming is difficult. > > How about "io_alloc_capable"? > Sounds good to me, thank you. Reinette
