lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V6 7/7] docs: mm: numaperf.rst Add brief description for access class 1.
From
Date
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@huawei.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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-18 12:35    [W:0.073 / U:0.992 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site