* Valentin Schneider <valentin.schnei...@arm.com> [2021-05-25 11:21:02]:
> On 24/05/21 21:48, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Valentin Schneider <valentin.schnei...@arm.com> [2021-05-24 15:16:09]:
> >> Ok so from your arch you can figure out the *size* of the set of unique
> >> distances, but not the individual node_distance(a, b)... That's quite
> >> unfortunate.
> >
> > Yes, thats true.
> >
> >>
> >> I suppose one way to avoid the hook would be to write some "fake" distance
> >> values into your distance_lookup_table[] for offline nodes using your
> >> distance_ref_point_depth thing, i.e. ensure an iteration of
> >> node_distance(a, b) covers all distance values [1]. You can then keep patch
> >> 3 around, and that should roughly be it.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, this would suffice but to me its not very clean.
> > static int found[distance_ref_point_depth];
> >
> > for_each_node(node){
> > int i, nd, distance = LOCAL_DISTANCE;
> > goto out;
> >
> > nd = node_distance(node, first_online_node)
> > for (i=0; i < distance_ref_point_depth; i++, distance *= 2) {
> > if (node_online) {
> > if (distance != nd)
> > continue;
> > found[i] ++;
> > break;
> > }
> > if (found[i])
> > continue;
> > distance_lookup_table[node][i] =
> > distance_lookup_table[first_online_node][i];
> > found[i] ++;
> > break;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > But do note: We are setting a precedent for node distance between two nodes
> > to change.
> >
>
> Indeed. AFAICT it's that or the unique-distance-values hook :/
Peter,
Please let me know which approach would you prefer.
I am open to try any other approach too.
In my humble opinion, unique-distance-values hook is more cleaner.
Do you still have any concerns with the unique-distance-values hook?
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
