[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <935fc14d-91f2-bc2a-f8b5-665e4145e148@deltatee.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 16:28:44 -0700
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@....com>,
Philip Yang <Philip.Yang@....com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
Paul Blinzer <Paul.Blinzer@....com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@...dia.com>,
Vivek Kini <vkini@...dia.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Ben Woodard <woodard@...hat.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] Heterogeneous Memory System (HMS) and hbind()
On 2018-12-06 4:09 p.m., Dave Hansen wrote:
> This looks great. But, we don't _have_ this kind of information for any
> system that I know about or any system available in the near future.
>
> We basically have two different world views:
> 1. The system is described point-to-point. A connects to B @
> 100GB/s. B connects to C at 50GB/s. Thus, C->A should be
> 50GB/s.
> * Less information to convey
> * Potentially less precise if the properties are not perfectly
> additive. If A->B=10ns and B->C=20ns, A->C might be >30ns.
> * Costs must be calculated instead of being explicitly specified
> 2. The system is described endpoint-to-endpoint. A->B @ 100GB/s
> B->C @ 50GB/s, A->C @ 50GB/s.
> * A *lot* more information to convey O(N^2)?
> * Potentially more precise.
> * Costs are explicitly specified, not calculated
>
> These patches are really tied to world view #1. But, the HMAT is really
> tied to world view #1.
I didn't think this was meant to describe actual real world performance
between all of the links. If that's the case all of this seems like a
pipe dream to me.
Attributes like cache coherency, atomics, etc should fit well in world
view #1... and, at best, some kind of flag saying whether or not to use
a particular link if you care about transfer speed. -- But we don't need
special "link" directories to describe the properties of existing buses.
You're not *really* going to know bandwidth or latency for any of this
unless you actually measure it on the system in question.
Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists