• 0 Posts
  • 78 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
Cake day: October 2nd, 2020
  • ganymede@lemmy.mltoLinux@lemmy.ml•Is there a way to monitor memory bandwidth utilisation?
    31·
    1 month ago

    (ok i see, you’re using the term CPU colloquially to refer to the processor. i know you obviously know the difference & that’s what you meant - i just mention the distinction for others who may not be aware.)

    ultimately op may not require exact monitoring, since they compared it to standard system monitors etc, which are ofc approximate as well. so the tools as listed by Eager Eagle in this comment may be sufficient for the general use described by op?

    eg. these, screenshots looks pretty close to what i imagined op meant

    now onto your very cool idea of substantially improving the temporal resolution of measuring memory bandwidth…you’ve got me very interested with your idea :)

    my inital sense is counting completed L3/4 cache misses sourced from DRAM and similar events might be alot easier - though as you point out that will inevitably accumulate event counts within a given time interval rather than an individual event.

    i understand the role of parity bits in ECC memory, but i didn’t quite understand how & which ECC fields you would access, and how/where you would store those results with improved temporal resolution compared to event counts?

    would love to hear what your setup would look like? :) which ECC-specific masks would you monitor? where/how would you store/process such high resolution results without impacting the measurement itself?

  • ganymede@lemmy.mltoLinux@lemmy.ml•Microsoft Proposes "Hornet" Security Module For The Linux Kernel
    2·
    3 months ago

    Or they’re just adding improvements to the software they heavily rely on.

    which they can do in private any time they wish, without any of the fanfare.

    if they actually believe in opensource let them opensource windows 7 1, or idk the 1/4 of a century old windows 2k

    instead we get the fanare as they pat themselves on the back for opensourcing MS-DOS 4.0 early last year (not even 8.0, which is 24 years old btw, 4.0 which came out in 1986).

    38 years ago…

    MS-fucking-DOS, from 38 years ago, THAT’S how much they give a shit about opensource mate.

    all we get is a poor pantomime which actually only illustrates just how stupid they truly think we are to believe the charade.

    does any of that mean they’re 100% have to be actively shipping “bad code” in this project, not by any means. does it mean microsoft will never make a useful contribution to linux, not by any means. what it does mean is they’re increasing their sphere of influence over the project. and they have absolutely no incentive to help anyone but themselves, in fact the opposite.

    as everyone knows (it’s not some deep secret the tech heads on lemmy somehow didn’t hear about) microsoft is highly dependent on linux for major revenue streams. anything a monolith depends on which they don’t control represents a risk. they’d be negligent if they didn’t try to exert control over it. and that’s for any organisation in their position. then factor in their widespread outspoken agenda against opensource, embrace, extend, extinguish and the vastly lacking longterm evidence to match their claims of <3 opensource.

    they’re welcome to prove us all wrong, but that isn’t even on the horizon currently.

    1 yes yes they claim they can’t because “licensing”, which is mostly but not entirely fucking flimsy, but ok devils advocate: release the rest, but nah.