On 2018-12-10 11:02 a.m., Eric Wehage wrote: > Hi Logan, > > Thank you for reviewing this. > > Although I mentioned the minimum bandwidth requirement in the introduction of the ECR, I did not include any specification changes that would require this. I recognized that for p2p to be useful, there must be a useful level of bandwidth, however, I could see no easy way to adequately advertise this. Ultimately, bandwidth levels could be seen as part of the platform architecture of each OEM. Performance differences between OEM's is often what makes a buyer choose one OEM's system over another in a competitive environment. So requiring a particular bandwidth level is like requiring an OEM to include a minimum number of cores in a system or a minimum number of PCIe links. So ultimately, I excluded any discussion of bandwidth in the ECR spec changes. > > However, if you see a particular way that this issue could be approached, I am still willing to consider a change. Yeah, per my last email, I don't want to advertise bandwidth. And I gave a rough rule as to what might qualify as "sufficient" bandwidth (ie. a boolean indicating whether it is roughly expected to be as fast or faster than RAM). I also was trying to get the point across that even if a particular piece of hardware does not have "sufficient" bandwidth it would still be valuable to publish whether the link is expected to work for the different TLP types. Some applications don't care about bandwidth and just want to know if they can ring doorbells, etc. Logan
