Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262096AbUKDGpn (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Nov 2004 01:45:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262103AbUKDGpm (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Nov 2004 01:45:42 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:46805 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262096AbUKDGok (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Nov 2004 01:44:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:37:16 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Takayoshi Kochi Cc: ak@suse.de, steiner@sgi.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Externalize SLIT table Message-ID: <20041104063716.GA28895@wotan.suse.de> References: <20041103205655.GA5084@sgi.com> <20041104.105908.18574694.t-kochi@bq.jp.nec.com> <20041104040713.GC21211@wotan.suse.de> <20041104.135721.08317994.t-kochi@bq.jp.nec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041104.135721.08317994.t-kochi@bq.jp.nec.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1605 Lines: 46 On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 01:57:21PM +0900, Takayoshi Kochi wrote: > Hi, > > From: Andi Kleen > Subject: Re: Externalize SLIT table > Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 05:07:13 +0100 > > > > Why not export node_distance() under sysfs? > > > I like (1). > > > > > > (1) obey one-value-per-file sysfs principle > > > > > > % cat /sys/devices/system/node/node0/distance0 > > > 10 > > > > Surely distance from 0 to 0 is 0? > > According to the ACPI spec, 10 means local and other values > mean ratio to 10. But what the distance number should mean Ah, missed that. ok I guess it makes sense to use the same encoding as ACPI, no need to be intentionally different. > mean is ambiguous from the spec (e.g. some veondors interpret as > memory access latency, others interpret as memory throughput > etc.) > However relative distance just works for most of uses, I believe. > > Anyway, we should clarify how the numbers should be interpreted > to avoid confusion. Defining it as "as defined in the ACPI spec" should be ok. I guess even non ACPI architectures will be able to live with that. Anyways, since we seem to agree and so far nobody has complained it's just that somebody needs to do a patch? If possible make it generic code in drivers/acpi/numa.c, there won't be anything architecture specific in this and it should work for x86-64 too. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/