Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add documentation for MBA software controller
From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Tue Apr 03 2018 - 10:30:00 EST
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
> You said above:
> > This may lead to confusion in scenarios below:
> Reading the blurb after that creates even more confusion than being
> First of all this information should not be under the section 'Memory
> bandwidth in MB/s'.
> Also please write bandwidth. The weird acronym b/w (band per width???) is
> really not increasing legibility.
> What you really want is a general section about memory bandwidth allocation
> where you explain the technical background in purely technical terms w/o
> fairy tale mode. Technical descriptions have to be factual and not
> If I decode the above correctly then the current percentage based
> implementation was buggy from the very beginning in several ways.
> Now the obvious question which is in no way answered by the cover letter is
> why the current percentage based implementation cannot be fixed and we need
> some feedback driven magic to achieve that. I assume you spent some brain
> cycles on that question, so it would be really helpful if you shared that.
> If I understand it correctly then the problem is that the throttling
> mechanism is per core and affects the L2 external bandwidth.
> Is this really per core? What about hyper threads. Both threads have that
> MSR. How is that working?
> The L2 external bandwidth is higher than the L3 external bandwidth.
> Is there any information available from CPUID or whatever source which
> allows us to retrieve the bandwidth ratio or the absolute maximum
> bandwidth per level?
> What's also missing from your explanation is how that feedback loop behaves
> under different workloads.
> Is this assuming that the involved threads/cpus actually try to utilize
> the bandwidth completely?
> What happens if the threads/cpus are only using a small set because they
> are idle or their computations are mostly cache local and do not need
> external bandwidth? Looking at the implementation I don't see how that is
> taken into account.
Forgot to mention the following:
The proposed new interface has no upper limit. The existing percentage
based implementation has at least some notion of limit and scale; not
really helpful either because of the hardware implementation. but I
How is the poor admin supposed to configure that new thing without
knowing what the actual hardware limits are in the first place?