Re: [PATCH 3/7] x86/resctrl: Introduce sdciae_capable in rdt_resource

[Moger, Babu]

Hi Reinette,

On 10/16/24 10:54, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
> 
> On 10/15/24 1:40 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>> On 9/19/24 10:33, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> On 9/18/24 11:22 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>>> On 9/18/24 10:27, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>>>> On 9/13/24 15:45, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/16/24 9:16 AM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>>>>>> Detect SDCIAE`(L3 Smart Data Cache Injection Allocation Enforcement)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (stray ` char)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> feature and initialize sdciae_capable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (This is a repeat of the discussion we had surrounding the ABMC feature.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By adding "sdciae_capable" to struct rdt_resource the "sdciae" feature
>>>>>> becomes a resctrl fs feature. Any other architecture that has a "similar
>>>>>> but perhaps not identical feature to AMD's SDCIAE" will be forced to also
>>>>>> call it "sdciae" ... sdciae seems like a marketing name to me and resctrl
>>>>>> needs something generic that could later be built on (if needed) by other
>>>>>> architectures.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about "cache_inject_capable" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems generic. I will change the description also.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Basically, this feature reserves specific CLOS for SDCI cache.
>>>>
>>>> We can also name "clos_reserve_capable".
>>>
>>> Naming is always complicated. I think we should try to stay away from
>>> "clos" in a generic name since that creates problem when trying to
>>> apply it to Arm and is very specific to how AMD implements this
>>> feature. "cache_inject_capable" does sound much better to me ...
>>> it also looks like this may be more appropriate as a property
>>> of struct resctrl_cache?
>>
>> Coming back to this again, I feel 'cache_inject_capable' is kind of very
>> generic. Cache injection term is used very generically everywhere.
>>
>> Does  'cache_reserve_capable" sound good ?  This is inside the resctrl
>> subsystem. We know what it is referring to.
>>
> 
> Since this is inside resctrl "cache_reserve_capable" sounds like existing
> CAT to me. Could it help if the term "io" appears in the name? Something like
> "io_reserve_capable"? When this is a member of struct resctrl_cache it should
> be implicit that it refers to the cache.

Yea. Naming is difficult.

How about "io_alloc_capable"?

-- 
Thanks
Babu Moger