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 78180C2D0C2 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4731B20866 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4731B20866 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 D8BDE8E0010; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 08:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D6B498E0003; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 08:08:56 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C790E8E0010; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 08:08:56 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0229.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.229]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43298E0003 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 08:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin01.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CBB2DFA for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:56 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76336353072.01.help62_8826cafcb5905 X-HE-Tag: help62_8826cafcb5905 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4207 Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) by imf34.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:55 +0000 (UTC) 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: quoted-printable 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 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 Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:18:59 +0100 Brice Goglin wrote: > Le 03/01/2020 =E0 11:09, Jonathan Cameron a =E9crit=A0: > > > > 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 contro= ller > > for a given memory lies in the proximity domain of the Initiator specif= ied. > > 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). =20 > > > > Removing the address range structures should work, or as you say you can > > move that memory into separate memory nodes. =20 >=20 >=20 > 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) >=20 > Thanks >=20 > 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