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

[Martin Kletzander]

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:10:38PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:07:23PM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 7:06 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:04:57PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:47:54PM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 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?
>> > >
>> > > Dan said he's fine with both, I'd probably go for max_allocations
>> > >
>> > > > 2. change type to scope ?
>> > >
>> > > I don't care, pros for both in the previous mail.
>> >
>> > Both attributes take the same enum values, so it is best to be consistent
>> > with the attribute name.
>> >
>> Thanks very much for Daniel & Martin
>>
>> Forgive me to ping you again, just make sure I am in correct place :
>>
>> If I read your comments correctly, we can go with:
>>
>> <cache>
>>   <bank id='0' level='3' type='unified' size='15360' unit='KiB' cpus='0-5'>
>>     <control min='768' unit='KiB' scope=‘code' max_allocation ='8'/>
>>     <control min='768' unit='KiB' scope=‘data' max_allocation ='8'/>
>>   </bank>
>>   <bank id='1' level='3' type='unified' size='15360' unit='KiB' cpus='6-11'>
>>     <control min='768' unit='KiB' scope=‘code' max_allocation ='8'/>
>>     <control min='768' unit='KiB' scope=‘data' max_allocation ='8'/>
>>
>>   </bank>
>> </cache>
>>
>>
>> @Daniel,
>>
>> the enum values are same with `type`
>>
>> unified: 0
>> instruction: 1
>> data: 2
>>
>> but scope should be both(0)/code(1)/data(2), so the attribute name will be
>
>'both' and 'unified' mean the same thing.
>
>'instruction' and 'code' mean the same thing to.
>
>So we should use the same terminology for both attributes. IOW, I
>suggest we use 'both', 'code', and 'data' everywhere.
>

In that case, please also tell me if I should use 'type' or 'scope' for
the cache info.  I, personally, have never head anyone referring to a
"code cache" or "both cache", but I'm fine with anything as long as
we're consistent.

>
>Regards,
>Daniel
>--
>|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
>|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
>|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-    http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20170418/867efd5a/attachment-0001.sig>