Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> writes: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 08:40:38PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> writes: > >> > I'm thinking we ought to keep hops as steps along the NUMA fabric, with >> > 0 hops being the local node. That only gets us: >> > >> > L2, remote=0, hops=HOPS_0 -- our L2 >> > L2, remote=1, hops=HOPS_0 -- L2 on the local node but not ours >> > L2, remote=1, hops!=HOPS_0 -- L2 on a remote node >> >> Hmm. I'm not sure about tying it directly to NUMA hops. I worry we're >> going to see more and more systems where there's a hierarchy within the >> chip/package, in addition to the traditional NUMA hierarchy. >> >> Although then I guess it becomes a question of what exactly is a NUMA >> hop, maybe the answer is that on those future systems those >> intra-chip/package hops should be represented as NUMA hops. >> >> It's not like we have a hard definition of what a NUMA hop is? > > Not really, typically whatever the BIOS/DT/whatever tables tell us. I > think in case of Power you're mostly making things up in software :-)
Firmware is software so yes :) > But yeah, I think we have plenty wriggle room there. OK. cheers