On 2/13/25 10:34 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote: > Hi Tony, > > On 2/13/25 10:39 AM, Luck, Tony wrote: >>> Yes, although there is some hard-to-avoid fuzz about the precise >>> meaning of "local" and "total". >> >> Things are only getting fuzzier with mixed DDR and CXL memory. >> >>> As Reinette pointed out, there is the also the possibility of adding >>> new named events other than "local" and "total" if we find that some >>> kinds of event don't fit these categories. >> >> Not just new names, new scopes too. Patches coming later this year >> that would present: >> >> $ cd sys/fs/resctrl >> $ cat mon_data/mon_PKG_00/llc_stalls >> 779762866739 > > Thank you for catching this. To support this would not be possible for > the current plan for mbm_assign_control since it does not have a way > to distinguish domain X of the PKG resource from domain X of the L3 resource. > Sounds like we need to include the resource name in the mbm_assign_control > syntax? ugh ... please ignore this message. This is not needed since mbm_assign_control is already associated with the resource. Reinette
