Re: [PATCH v2] sched/topology: Check average distances to remote packages

[Tim Chen]

On Wed, 2026-02-25 at 23:30 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 01:37:11PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2026-02-25 at 17:32 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 04:44:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Yes, so this assumes that all u sized clusters on the trace are similar
> > > > and 'sane' without verification.
> > > 
> > > That gave me an idea; how's this then?
> > 
> > Sorry I was sick for a few days.  Just catching up on this
> > thread here. I think your patch takes care of both GNR SNC-3 
> > with 3 compute dies (with non-symmetric remote
> > distances) and generic SNC-2 with 2 dies (symmetric
> > distances) very well.
> > 
> > Minor suggestion below for the patch.
> > 
> > Will ask the original GNR teams with the problem to try
> > it out.
> 
> Since HPE can obviously have a sane SLIT table; why can't we simply
> claim the SLIT table they had is broken and needs fixing?

>From what I can see HPE seems to use SNC-2 variant of GNR so the SLIT
is symmetric.

Unfortunately in the topology for the 2 socket GNR that has 3 dies, there
are truly unsymmetric paths from between die A to die B between remote
sockets from what I'm told. 

> 
> Also, is there really no enumeration of the SNC mode available; must we
> really divinate?

Let me dig into that a bit. I was also thinking with that information,
it will make the code a lot simpler.

Tim