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=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham 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 96634C2D0D1 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6493221582 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:37:32 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6493221582 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0AC078E0114; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:37:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 05C018E00F5; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:37:32 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id EB3D08E0114; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:37:31 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0174.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4EC98E00F5 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:37:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 77CC78249980 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:37:31 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76278515502.14.knife87_7bdcb8d9e3230 X-HE-Tag: knife87_7bdcb8d9e3230 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4106 Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:37:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 6751A2B9EB2AF1B35A2E; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:37:28 +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; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:37:27 +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_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:37:27 +0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:37:25 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Brice Goglin CC: , , , , , Keith Busch , , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , , "Andrew Morton" , Dan Williams , Tao Xu , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Hanjun Guo , Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 7/7] docs: mm: numaperf.rst Add brief description for access class 1. Message-ID: <20191218143725.00002f6f@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <4cf4e790-cacb-b250-bf28-5ba540eb0dc7@gmail.com> References: <20191216153809.105463-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> <20191216153809.105463-8-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> <4cf4e790-cacb-b250-bf28-5ba540eb0dc7@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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.202.226.57] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) To lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:34:34 +0100 Brice Goglin wrote: > Le 16/12/2019 =E0 16:38, Jonathan Cameron a =E9crit=A0: > > Try to make minimal changes to the document which already describes > > access class 0 in a generic fashion (including IO initiatiors that > > are not CPUs). > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron > > --- > > Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst | 8 ++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst b/Documentation/= admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst > > index a80c3c37226e..327c0d72692d 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst > > @@ -56,6 +56,11 @@ nodes' access characteristics share the same perform= ance relative to other > > linked initiator nodes. Each target within an initiator's access class, > > though, do not necessarily perform the same as each other. > > =20 > > +The access class "1" is used to allow differentiation between initiato= rs > > +that are CPUs and hence suitable for generic task scheduling, and > > +IO initiators such as GPUs and CPUs. Unlike access class 0, only > > +nodes containing CPUs are considered. > > + > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > NUMA Performance > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > @@ -88,6 +93,9 @@ The latency attributes are provided in nanoseconds. > > The values reported here correspond to the rated latency and bandwidth > > for the platform. > > =20 > > +Access class 0, takes the same form, but only includes values for CPU = to > > +memory activity. =20 >=20 >=20 > Shouldn't this be "class 1" here? >=20 Good point. Jonathan > Both hunks look contradictory to me. >=20 > Brice >=20 >=20