> I do not think that resctrl's current support of the mbm_total_bytes and
> mbm_local_bytes should be considered as the "only" two available "slots"
> into which all possible events should be forced into. "mon_features" exists
> to guide user space to which events are supported and as I see it new events
> can be listed here to inform user space of their availability, with their
> associated event files available in the resource groups.

100%  I have a number of "events" in the pipeline that do not fit these
names. I'm planning on new files with descriptive[1] names for the events
they report.

-Tony

[1] When these are ready to post we can discuss the names I chose and
change them if there are better names that work across architectures.

Hi Tony,

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:11:13AM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > I do not think that resctrl's current support of the mbm_total_bytes and
> > mbm_local_bytes should be considered as the "only" two available "slots"
> > into which all possible events should be forced into. "mon_features" exists
> > to guide user space to which events are supported and as I see it new events
> > can be listed here to inform user space of their availability, with their
> > associated event files available in the resource groups.
> 
> 100%  I have a number of "events" in the pipeline that do not fit these
> names. I'm planning on new files with descriptive[1] names for the events
> they report.
> 
> -Tony
> 
> [1] When these are ready to post we can discuss the names I chose and
> change them if there are better names that work across architectures.

Do any of the approaches discussed in [2] look viable for this?

(Ideally, reply over there.)

Cheers
---Dave

[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Z64tw2NbJXbKpLrH@e133380.arm.com/