Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:08:50 +0000
From:   Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To:     Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@gmail.com>
CC:     <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
        "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
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>
        <dc5f5502-09c6-d476-db0e-0af3412bb031@gmail.com>
        <20191218145041.00005a11@Huawei.com>
        <1867024e-b0c4-c291-7190-262cc4b297a8@gmail.com>
        <20200102152604.000039f1@Huawei.com>
        <b428d231-4879-4462-ac42-900b5d094eee@gmail.com>
        <20200103100920.00006a18@Huawei.com>
        <13b2cc22-df30-ebee-fb94-cd66d8334507@gmail.com>
Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:18:59 +0100
Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 03/01/2020 ? 11:09, Jonathan Cameron a ?crit?:
> >
> > 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