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=unavailable 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 A9E94C2D0C3 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:37:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8925721582 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:37:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727165AbfLROha convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:37:30 -0500 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([185.176.76.210]:2205 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726921AbfLROha (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:37:30 -0500 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: 8BIT 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 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:34:34 +0100 Brice Goglin wrote: > Le 16/12/2019 à 16:38, Jonathan Cameron a écrit : > > 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 performance relative to other > > linked initiator nodes. Each target within an initiator's access class, > > though, do not necessarily perform the same as each other. > > > > +The access class "1" is used to allow differentiation between initiators > > +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. > > + > > ================ > > NUMA Performance > > ================ > > @@ -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. > > > > +Access class 0, takes the same form, but only includes values for CPU to > > +memory activity. > > > Shouldn't this be "class 1" here? > Good point. Jonathan > Both hunks look contradictory to me. > > Brice > >