From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7B0C2D0C2 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C417920866 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="Gq86DHke" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C417920866 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=gNm7Z2KkoOK6+IBSSLw3v3FkW0WqtyxFM78kCxqbntA=; b=Gq86DHkeMww6TQ d8WdtXMAnViCvET6mLDBKv4Yus4xCA5S3RxNrJOns15EIaOlazRpyS1AhTrBkTMKTgoIVKxI3I0mS iHVMSW6H56B/iiCaNwPJiRpgF1JHxJYmR1oZBF9H+DEO4xgik1M6R03o8VetQPCpI+5JWoD0FwhNi V3wthTAhV0lDQg6whUzQrQI73gHw2Miy8u9zO16+Tv5yackFUKujR1Pym+xxpQvQfoCBJEPEPVfHy 716ZwLGz98l8UJbFvEpzZScC8IMmnBIj3oLIblVyHAGKsgKMOboTd/sWAhLyriL+1dnRgg1aslG7A kEoJfQlGYAIZeKg9sfyg==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1inMhH-0004Ga-GP; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 13:08:59 +0000 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([185.176.76.210] helo=huawei.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1inMhE-0004Fx-Nj for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 13:08:58 +0000 Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 398379D5653B36C4EBDE; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:51 +0000 Received: from localhost (10.202.226.57) by lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:51 +0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:50 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Brice Goglin Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 0/7] ACPI: Support Generic Initiator proximity domains Message-ID: <20200103130850.00000ace@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <13b2cc22-df30-ebee-fb94-cd66d8334507@gmail.com> References: <20191216153809.105463-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> <20191218145041.00005a11@Huawei.com> <1867024e-b0c4-c291-7190-262cc4b297a8@gmail.com> <20200102152604.000039f1@Huawei.com> <20200103100920.00006a18@Huawei.com> <13b2cc22-df30-ebee-fb94-cd66d8334507@gmail.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; i686-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.202.226.57] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml730-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.81) To lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200103_050856_922633_6481D5B1 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 16.92 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Tao Xu , x86@kernel.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, jglisse@redhat.com, Sudeep Holla , Hanjun Guo , Keith Busch , Andrew Morton , Dan Williams , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:18:59 +0100 Brice Goglin wrote: > Le 03/01/2020 =E0 11:09, Jonathan Cameron a =E9crit=A0: > > > > 1) If the memory and processor are in the same domain, that should mean= the > > access characteristics within that domain are the best in the system. > > It is possible to have a setup with very low latency access > > from a particular processor but also low bandwidth. Another domain may= have > > high bandwidth but long latency. Such systems may occur, but they are= probably > > going to not be for 'normal memory the OS can just use'. > > > > 2) If we have a relevant "Memory Proximity Domain Attributes Structure" > > Note this was renamed in acpi 6.3 from "Address Range Structure" as > > it no longer has any address ranges. > > (which are entirely optional btw) that indicates that the memory contro= ller > > for a given memory lies in the proximity domain of the Initiator specif= ied. > > If that happens we ignore cases where hmat says somewhere else is nearer > > via bandwidth and latency. > > > > For case 1) I'm not sure we actually enforce it. > > I think you've hit case 2). = > > > > Removing the address range structures should work, or as you say you can > > move that memory into separate memory nodes. = > = > = > I removed the "processor proximity domain valid" flag from the address > range structure of node2, and the GI is now its access0 initiator > instead of node2 itself. Looks like it confirms I was in case 2) > = > Thanks > = > Brice Cool. I was wondering if that change would work fine. It is a somewhat crazy setup so I didn't have an equivalent in my test set. Sounds like all is working as expected. Thanks, Jonathan _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel