[libvirt] [PATCH V3] Expose resource control capabilites on cache bank

[Eli Qiao]

> 
> The name doesn't really matter that much, 'scope' makes a bit more
> sense, 'type' is consistent with the cache bank specification, I'm fine
> with any. The big question here was if it is possible to have:
> 
> <bank type='unified'>
> <control scope='code'/>
> <control scope='data'/>
> </bank>
> 
> And from what you say, the simple answer is "yes". So we need to have
> the attribute there in the control element as well.
> 
> 


Dan/Martin

Could you please advice which should be changed ? LoL

This is the output if I enabled CDP

    <cache>
      <bank id='0' level='3' type='unified' size='15360' unit='KiB' cpus='0-5'>
        <control min='768' unit='KiB' type='instruction' nallocations='8'/>
        <control min='768' unit='KiB' type='data' nallocations='8'/>
      </bank>
      <bank id='1' level='3' type='unified' size='15360' unit='KiB' cpus='6-11'>
        <control min='768' unit='KiB' type='instruction' nallocations='8'/>
        <control min='768' unit='KiB' type='data' nallocations='8'/>
      </bank>
    </cache>


1. change nallocations to allocations/max_allocation?
2. change type to scope ? 
3. change `instruction` to `code` (with CDP enabled, it called DATA/CODE which is somewhat
    different from /sys/fs/system/cpu/cpu*/cache/type, and I am now reuse virCacheType defined
    by Martin, should I define another Type)?


> 
> P.S.: It would be clearly visible if you added the test case ;) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20170407/62474089/attachment-0001.htm>