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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 70A59C4360F for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:51:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3877E20C01 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:51:12 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3877E20C01 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BE14D8E0010; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:51:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B90A08E000E; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:51:11 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A7F7A8E0010; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:51:11 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-pg1-f198.google.com (mail-pg1-f198.google.com [209.85.215.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656118E000E for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:51:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pg1-f198.google.com with SMTP id d3so7377051pgv.23 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:51:11 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:date:from:to :cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=jfEoQJT/Fn8gB9Ej7ChqP19uBo96vax3O9WfrvyIdT8=; b=NMRwoZMoDPcETR3tYmXon+xAkV3BhiWKCaIwKgEywnN3XLBNcs1FhCQmL6jHjhwu+R dAd9y7fF02rlnk1rj0TNosdkdhNG1pYMvMLzyMPWkqmXG3EkpkZppmbWdd2ZJkDeFK8a 0iIwLO9/3c1gWmrmDefjGK+Ka281BeLWpblQInunGrle95XRxxdUIcCNopNM7w9Su44J rPy0elUkLt1t8eFFHtEakp5whcODuWgz6zTfYpaLeoi+LOmIkPskSPW21KMkmNMx47fu +CwwWBECwzSPdRkhVemuPMbVAL2V9nS/xQBDv/GbbsZeL0yEdvhkbSYr84EGwJdBG+Hx 1kaA== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of keith.busch@intel.com designates 134.134.136.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=keith.busch@intel.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubOtWGbNPFgxORhqPLOqIfLE4IYW0NLwy1CfVDwb1DrP1oiteqK Dtm7fxym6ThihKh1kLFd2JdPMqJoLDsHAH2vu019Ub0H90QPGPlDo/MHsvJJ58Ae9CmPXkpQars 0AKoEoz/cTbwptEnivfxX+jc/JcfNvkS8k9AlGwgCzmnpEOmsDCg4jMig9bRLcKCSeQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:e451:: with SMTP id i17mr19924215pgk.413.1551113471076; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:51:11 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbQM3DapQpftInKMue0xl+WXXAMMD2hJd9D0FwgvWp9YA9rHH9XsI2rOW9k/dPBElqeOGS0 X-Received: by 2002:a63:e451:: with SMTP id i17mr19924162pgk.413.1551113470119; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:51:10 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1551113470; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=BwGDz8Jgcncd3RAYN5zMyNkANJcqBnywrCb+9/8fS0FMoEqO37Pnmyc0qk3dpxAVXj HUsCmq4BSR4aF2YQrrESBnd/Jh0zJvrUcXvcHk/0ySsTRliALkhUYNkUyJYNFq06wpWh 5DcmflVeiWI6SxtGEZ2T0ONFLADHqTOPI2bjzDMRWpfoyV6Kvdobxge7yO4l66KYV7eU cZGPtWA9OOCt36MrOBhdzh5KzT6L2nrs7d5eieGqbsl7N68iIw6Ho53voASwmwDmuzSZ bjKHBkiJPGT40Yz+EV2lNRrF6NYWp5GTx7f7zEKiqupaIQC/RFmIpKYRwbLaBHozmr5I I68Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=jfEoQJT/Fn8gB9Ej7ChqP19uBo96vax3O9WfrvyIdT8=; b=MEBznC542aUu83n/tZph09Bv57wEaQOw2a7KEctniF0Xltlvsauuf6E8w05b5b8VVQ g4DIsPNE2BuXwqQEGndaK8ae0BGaCTBVkKzywMnnb6PPB+ZQifEqxLHY2sNv3KVrexOG 0xWaRUOlp/8cWZbeiXXEFXYOvcnH6Em9C3qlnTvyTUKESItlaW93GIxnAoFtwvHXFNJz oejVbulJKtosWlvcxqEOSCSzBmsa1z5vXsP8grrpfb71MI6yLDnwzag1rLxOSvdq7Ys2 B0+YUYS/p0ZEtcN7pSeAHkp9x2gKGBADMMW7/UdBHC3LQUY3+5fTWLQGpZiv03S0yEjH pj8A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of keith.busch@intel.com designates 134.134.136.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=keith.busch@intel.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com. [134.134.136.65]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e2si10409767pgm.568.2019.02.25.08.51.09 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:51:10 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of keith.busch@intel.com designates 134.134.136.65 as permitted sender) client-ip=134.134.136.65; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of keith.busch@intel.com designates 134.134.136.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=keith.busch@intel.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Feb 2019 08:51:09 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,411,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="323239250" Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) ([10.232.112.69]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2019 08:51:08 -0800 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:51:18 -0700 From: Keith Busch To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Memory Management List , Linux API , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Dave Hansen , Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 07/10] acpi/hmat: Register processor domain to its memory Message-ID: <20190225165118.GK10237@localhost.localdomain> References: <20190214171017.9362-1-keith.busch@intel.com> <20190214171017.9362-8-keith.busch@intel.com> <20190222184831.GF10237@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) 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 Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 08:59:45PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 7:48 PM Keith Busch wrote: > > If I do it the other way around, that's going to make HMEM_REPORTING > > complicated if a non-ACPI implementation wants to report HMEM > > properties. > > But the mitigations that Dave was talking about get in the way, don't they? > > Say there is another Kconfig option,CACHE_MITIGATIONS, to enable them. > Then you want ACPI_HMAT to be set when that it set and you also want > ACPI_HMAT to be set when HMEM_REPORTING and ACPI_NUMA are both set. > > OTOH, you may not want HMEM_REPORTING to be set when CACHE_MITIGATIONS > is set, but that causes ACPI_HMAT to be set and which means that > ACPI_HMAT alone will not be sufficient to determine the > HMEM_REPORTING value. I can't think of when we'd want to suppress reporting these attributes to user space, but I can split HMAT enabling so it doesn't depend on HMEM_REPORTING just in case there really is an in-kernel user that definitely does not want the same attributes exported. > Now, if you prompt for HMEM_REPORTING and make it depend on ACPI_NUMA, > then ACPI_HMAT can be selected by that (regardless of the > CACHE_MITIGATIONS value). > > And if someone wants to use HMEM_REPORTING without ACPI_NUMA, it can > be made depend on whatever new option is there for that non-ACPI > mechanism. > > There might be a problem if someone wanted to enable the alternative > way of HMEM_REPORTING if ACPI_NUMA was set (in which case HMAT would > have to be ignored even if it was present), but in that case there > would need to be an explicit way to choose between HMAT and non-HMAT > anyway. > > In any case, I prefer providers to be selected by consumers and not > the other way around, in case there are multiple consumers for one > provider. Well, the HMEM_REPORTING fundamentally has no dependency on any of these things and I've put some effort into making this part provider agnostic. I will change it if this concern is gating acceptance, but I don't think it's as intuitive for generic interfaces to be the selector for implementation specific providers.