Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 3/3] tools, docs: add total/local memory bandwith monitoring

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:06:09PM +0800, Chao Peng wrote:
> Add Memory Bandwidth Monitoring(MBM) for VMs. Two types of monitoring
> are supported: total and local memory bandwidth monitoring. To use it,
> CMT should be enabled in hypervisor.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v9:
> 1. Refactor code in xc_psr_cmt_get_data.

Preferably this should be in a separate patch. With the line "No
functional change" in commit message when appropriate.

[...]
>   */
>  #define LIBXL_HAVE_PSR_CMT 1
> +
> +/*
> + * LIBXL_HAVE_PSR_MBM
> + *
> + * If this is defined, the Memory Bandwidth Monitoring feature is supported.
> + */
> +#define LIBXL_HAVE_PSR_MBM 1
>  #endif
>  
>  typedef char **libxl_string_list;
> @@ -1463,6 +1470,16 @@ int libxl_psr_cmt_get_cache_occupancy(libxl_ctx *ctx,
>                                        uint32_t *l3_cache_occupancy);
>  #endif
>  
> +#ifdef LIBXL_HAVE_PSR_MBM
> +int libxl_psr_cmt_type_supported(libxl_ctx *ctx, libxl_psr_cmt_type type);
> +int libxl_psr_cmt_get_mem_bandwidth_sample(libxl_ctx *ctx,
> +                                           uint32_t domid,
> +                                           uint32_t socketid,
> +                                           bool     total,
> +                                           uint64_t *sample_r,
> +                                           uint64_t *tsc_r);

Should the interface be only limited to socket level? Do you (Intel) has
plan to provide bandwidth sampling on finer grain level (say, core
level)?

I also assume that you will never have third type of memory bandwidth?
I.e. do we need to change boolean total to a enum?

Wei.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel