Re: [PATCH 00/12] Cqm2: Intel Cache quality monitoring fixes

[David Carrillo-Cisneros]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 12) Whatever fs or syscall is provided instead of perf syscalls, it
>> should provide total_time_enabled in the way perf does, otherwise is
>> hard to interpret MBM values.
>
> It seems that it is hard to define what we even mean by memory bandwidth.
>
> If you are measuring just one task and you find that the total number of bytes
> read is 1GB at some point, and one second later the total bytes is 2GB, then
> it is clear that the average bandwidth for this process is 1GB/s. If you know
> that the task was only running for 50% of the cycles during that 1s interval,
> you could say that it is doing 2GB/s ... which is I believe what you were
> thinking when you wrote #12 above.

Yes, that's one of the cases.

> But whether that is right depends a
> bit on *why* it only ran 50% of the time. If it was time-sliced out by the
> scheduler ... then it may have been trying to be a 2GB/s app. But if it
> was waiting for packets from the network, then it really is using 1 GB/s.

IMO, "right" means that measured bandwidth and running time are
correct. The *why* is a bigger question.

>
> All bets are off if you are measuring a service that consists of several
> tasks running concurrently. All you can really talk about is the aggregate
> average bandwidth (total bytes / wall-clock time). It makes no sense to
> try and factor in how much cpu time each of the individual tasks got.

cgroup mode gives a per-CPU breakdown of event and running time, the
tool aggregates it into running time vs event count. Both per-cpu
breakdown and the aggregate are useful.

Piggy-backing on perf's cgroup mode would give us all the above for free.

>
> -Tony