[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 09/25] x86: refactor psr: L3 CAT: set value: implement framework.
- To: "Yi Sun" <yi.y.sun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 02:24:40 -0600
- Cc: kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx, wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx, he.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx, ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mengxu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:25:06 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
>>> On 25.04.17 at 09:15, <yi.y.sun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sorry, this may cause potential issue and is not a good example. But from SW
> view, there is another case where the per-socket supporting is important in
> real-time scenarios. You may have a real-time domain on one socket that
> requires
> different masks (especially for code/data) to guarantee its performance vs.
> other general-purpose domains run on a different socket. In that case it’s a
> heterogeneous software usage model (rather than heterogeneous hardware). And,
> we should not force same masks setting on different sockets in such case.
I don't follow: The COS IDs for the real-time and general purpose
domains would be different, wouldn't they? Thus there would be
different masks in use, as intended.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
