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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=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 54C89C32767 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A6122522 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727773AbgACNIy convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jan 2020 08:08:54 -0500 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([185.176.76.210]:2227 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727587AbgACNIy (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jan 2020 08:08:54 -0500 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 CC: , , , , , Keith Busch , , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , , "Andrew Morton" , Dan Williams , Tao Xu , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Hanjun Guo , Sudeep Holla 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT 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 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:18:59 +0100 Brice Goglin wrote: > Le 03/01/2020 à 11:09, Jonathan Cameron a écrit : > > > > 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 controller > > for a given memory lies in the proximity domain of the Initiator specified. > > 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