Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 24 Apr 2022 19:43:02 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Ali Saidi <alisaidi@amazon.com>, kan.liang@linux.intel.com,
        Nick.Forrington@arm.com, acme@kernel.org,
        alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, andrew.kilroy@arm.com,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, german.gomez@arm.com,
        james.clark@arm.com, john.garry@huawei.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
        kjain@linux.ibm.com, lihuafei1@huawei.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] perf: Add SNOOP_PEER flag to perf mem data struct
Message-ID: <20220424114302.GB978927@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
References: <c17dedde-6ba8-db9b-4827-32477f039764@linux.intel.com>
 <20220422212249.22463-1-alisaidi@amazon.com>
 <20220423063805.GA559531@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
 <8e09af67-a416-4ead-b406-6c8b998de344@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8e09af67-a416-4ead-b406-6c8b998de344@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 05:53:28AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > Except SNOOPX_FWD means a no modified cache snooping, it also means it's
> > a cache conherency from *remote* socket.  This is quite different from we
> > define SNOOPX_PEER, which only snoop from peer CPU or clusters.
> > 
> > If no objection, I prefer we could keep the new snoop type SNOOPX_PEER,
> > this would be easier for us to distinguish the semantics and support the
> > statistics for SNOOPX_FWD and SNOOPX_PEER separately.
> > 
> > I overlooked the flag SNOOPX_FWD, thanks a lot for Kan's reminding.
> 
> Yes seems better to keep using a separate flag if they don't exactly match.
> 
> It's not that we're short on flags anyways.

Thanks for confirmation.

Leo