Linux CXL
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jim Harris <jim.harris@samsung.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org" <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxl/region: Refactor logic around check_last_peer()
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 22:37:40 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZTmYswn9afRy/SCF@ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6538824b52349_7258329466@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 07:49:47PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> 
> It turns out this patch fails cxl-region-sysfs.sh.
> 
>     test/cxl-region-sysfs.sh: failed at line 94
>     
>     [   38.367581] check_last_peer: cxl region8: cxl_host_bridge.0:port4: mem5:decoder15.1 pos 4 mismatched peer mem7:decoder17.0
>     
> This patch looked so appetizing that I really wanted it to be a bug in
> the test and not a bug in this patch, but I think it is the latter.
> 
> > @@ -1111,20 +1111,17 @@ static int cxl_port_setup_targets(struct cxl_port *port,
> >  
> >       cxlsd = to_cxl_switch_decoder(&cxld->dev);
> >       if (cxl_rr->nr_targets_set) {
> > -             int i, distance;
> > +             int i;
> >  
> >               /*
> > -              * Passthrough decoders impose no distance requirements between
> > -              * peers
> > +              * Check if this endpoint's dport is already in the
> > +              * switch decoder's target list, and if so check that
> > +              * it is positioned correctly based on the switch's
> > +              * interleave.
> >                */
> > -             if (cxl_rr->nr_targets == 1)
> > -                     distance = 0;
> > -             else
> > -                     distance = p->nr_targets / cxl_rr->nr_targets;
> 
> This calculation is essentially doing the "top-down" version of the
> "bottom-up" position calculation Alison introduced in her proposed region
> assembly fixes:
> 
>     for_each_parent_port(...)
>         pos = pos * parent_ways + parent_pos
> 
> So in a x8 region across 2x HBs with 2x switches per HB. The "distance"
> of peers at the switch level is 4. This change makes that 2.
> 
> Maybe the right conceptual cleanup is to still ditch this distance
> calculation based on "p->nr_targets / cxl_rr->nr_targets" and walk up
> from this port and multiply the local ways by all the ancestral ways,
> but as is this gets the answer with less steps (modulo all the work to
> build up @ep and @cxl_rr).

Thanks Dan. I'll run with that and push out a v2.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-10-25 22:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CGME20231010194652uscas1p18968f3a66d8cbe6d76dd444aa3ec50aa@uscas1p1.samsung.com>
2023-10-10 19:46 ` [PATCH] cxl/region: Refactor logic around check_last_peer() Jim Harris
2023-10-25  2:49   ` Dan Williams
2023-10-25 22:37     ` Jim Harris [this message]
2023-11-01  5:12       ` Jim Harris
2023-11-01  5:02   ` [PATCH v2] " Jim Harris
2023-11-02 22:42     ` Alison Schofield

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ZTmYswn9afRy/SCF@ubuntu \
    --to=jim.harris@samsung.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox