Hi Tony, On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:11:13AM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote: > > I do not think that resctrl's current support of the mbm_total_bytes and > > mbm_local_bytes should be considered as the "only" two available "slots" > > into which all possible events should be forced into. "mon_features" exists > > to guide user space to which events are supported and as I see it new events > > can be listed here to inform user space of their availability, with their > > associated event files available in the resource groups. > > 100% I have a number of "events" in the pipeline that do not fit these > names. I'm planning on new files with descriptive[1] names for the events > they report. > > -Tony > > [1] When these are ready to post we can discuss the names I chose and > change them if there are better names that work across architectures. Do any of the approaches discussed in [2] look viable for this? (Ideally, reply over there.) Cheers ---Dave [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Z64tw2NbJXbKpLrH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
