From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Intel Cache Monitoring: Current
 Status and Future Opportunities
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:55:54 +0800
Message-ID: <20150408085554.GG3404@pengc-linux.bj.intel.com>
References: <20150404020423.22875.23590.stgit@Solace.station>
	<5523B0FB.8020509@citrix.com> <1428412199.5671.94.camel@citrix.com>
	<20150408055916.GF3404@pengc-linux.bj.intel.com>
	<1428481389.5671.98.camel@citrix.com>
Reply-To: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1428481389.5671.98.camel@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, "JBeulich@suse.com" <JBeulich@suse.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 08:23:11AM +0000, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 13:59 +0800, Chao Peng wrote:
> 
> > > Mostly, I was curious to learn why that is not reflected in the current
> > > implementation, i.e., whether there are any reasons why we should not
> > > take advantage of per-socketness of RMIDs, as reported by SDM, as that
> > > can greatly help mitigating RMID shortage in the per-CPU/core/socket
> > > configuration (in general, actually, but it's per-cpu that I'm
> > > interested in).
> > 
> > Andrew is right, RMID is a per-socket property. One reason it's not used
> > in current implementation, I think, is the fact that max_rmid is
> > normally the same among sockets, though they can be different in theory.
> > So the same RMID is targeted for all the sockets. But per-socketness of
> > RMIDs can be used anyway. 
> > 
> Yeah, but rather than to the maximum number of available RMIDs, what I'm
> much interested in is whether I can use _the_ _same_ RMID for different
> cores, if they belong to different sockets. AFAIUI, it is possible, is
> that correct?

You are correct. So you actually have 72 RMIDs(0~71) for each sockets.
Normally there are 2 or more RMIDs per hardware thread.

Chao