On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 1:45 AM Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 15:57:10 -0800 > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:41 AM Jonathan Cameron > > <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 16:31:24 -0800 > > > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > While CXL memory targets will have their own memory target node, > > > > individual memory devices may be affinitized like other PCI devices. > > > > Emit that attribute for memdevs. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Hmm. Is this just duplicating what we can get from > > > the PCI device? It feels a bit like overkill to have it here > > > as well. > > > > Not all cxl_memdevs are associated with PCI devices. > > Platform devices have numa nodes too... So what's the harm in having a numa_node attribute local to the memdev? Yes, userspace could carry complications like: cat $(readlink -f /sys/bus/cxl/devices/mem0)/../numa_node ...but if you take that argument to its extreme, most "numa_node" attributes in sysfs could be eliminated because userspace can keep walking up the hierarchy to find the numa_node versus the kernel doing it on behalf of userspace.
