From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933287AbbKMR3H (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:29:07 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58042 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932943AbbKMR3E (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:29:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:27:40 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Luiz Capitulino , Thomas Gleixner , Vikas Shivappa , Tejun Heo , Yu Fenghua , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ioctl based CAT interface Message-ID: <20151113172740.GA13490@amt.cnet> References: <20151113163933.GA10222@amt.cnet> <20151113165100.GI17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151113165100.GI17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:51:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:39:33PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > + * * one tcrid entry can be in different locations > > + * in different sockets. > > NAK on that without cpuset integration. > > I do not want freely migratable tasks having radically different > performance profiles depending on which CPU they land. Please expand on what "cpuset integration" means, operationally. I hope it does not mean "i prefer cgroups as an interface", because that does not mean much to me. So you are saying this should be based on cgroups? Have you seen the cgroups proposal and the issues with it, that have been posted?