On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:45:52AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:07:24 -0700 > Keith Busch <keith.bu...@intel.com> wrote: > > + # tree -P "read*|write*" /sys/devices/system/node/nodeY/access0/ > > + /sys/devices/system/node/nodeY/access0/ > > + |-- read_bandwidth > > + |-- read_latency > > + |-- write_bandwidth > > + `-- write_latency > > These seem to be under > /sys/devices/system/node/nodeY/access0/initiators/ > (so one directory deeper).
You're right, I used data from the previous series to generate that. > > + # tree sys/devices/system/node/node0/side_cache/ > > + /sys/devices/system/node/node0/side_cache/ > > + |-- index1 > > + | |-- associativity > > + | |-- level > > What is the purpose of having level in here? Isn't it the same as the A..C > in the index naming? Yes, it is redundant with the name. I will remove it. > > + | |-- line_size > > + | |-- size > > + | `-- write_policy > > + > > +The "associativity" will be 0 if it is a direct-mapped cache, and non-zero > > +for any other indexed based, multi-way associativity. > > Is it worth providing the ACPI mapping in this doc? We have None, Direct and > 'complex'. Fun question of what None means? Not specified? Yeah, my take on "none" was that it's unreported and we don't know what is actually happening.. > > + > > +The "level" is the distance from the far memory, and matches the number > > +appended to its "index" directory. > > + > > +The "line_size" is the number of bytes accessed on a cache miss. > > Maybe "number of bytes accessed from next cache level" ? Sounds good.
