linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 7/7] docs: mm: numaperf.rst Add brief description for access class 1.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:34:34 +0100
From:   Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org
Cc:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, jglisse@...hat.com,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linuxarm@...wei.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Tao Xu <tao3.xu@...el.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 7/7] docs: mm: numaperf.rst Add brief description for
 access class 1.

Le 16/12/2019 à 16:38, Jonathan Cameron a écrit :
> Try to make minimal changes to the document which already describes
> access class 0 in a generic fashion (including IO initiatiors that
> are not CPUs).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst
> index a80c3c37226e..327c0d72692d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst
> @@ -56,6 +56,11 @@ nodes' access characteristics share the same performance relative to other
>  linked initiator nodes. Each target within an initiator's access class,
>  though, do not necessarily perform the same as each other.
>  
> +The access class "1" is used to allow differentiation between initiators
> +that are CPUs and hence suitable for generic task scheduling, and
> +IO initiators such as GPUs and CPUs.  Unlike access class 0, only
> +nodes containing CPUs are considered.
> +
>  ================
>  NUMA Performance
>  ================
> @@ -88,6 +93,9 @@ The latency attributes are provided in nanoseconds.
>  The values reported here correspond to the rated latency and bandwidth
>  for the platform.
>  
> +Access class 0, takes the same form, but only includes values for CPU to
> +memory activity.


Shouldn't this be "class 1" here?

Both hunks look contradictory to me.

Brice