ywkang
a796c1d2f7
Establish English as the canonical ADR language with Korean translations held in a parallel docs/adr-ko/ tree as derived artifacts (1:1 mirror). Promotion from adr-proposed/ to adr/ now writes English to adr/ and the Korean to adr-ko/; bidirectional sync rule documented in CLAUDE.md. - Migrate 30 ADRs in docs/adr/: 28 Korean-only translated to English, 2 bilingual pairs (ADR-0020, ADR-0023) consolidated (.en.md suffix dropped). ADR-0023 EN regenerated against KO source which had newer HW Realization Notes (D16-D23) section. - docs/adr-history/ left frozen by design (transitional state). - CLAUDE.md (Part 2): update ADR Lifecycle for 4-folder layout, mark docs/adr-ko/ as a Derived Artifact, add ADR Translation Discipline section covering bidirectional sync, conflict resolution (EN wins), and proposed-language freedom. - tools/verify_adr_lang_pairs.py: new verification tool checking pair completeness, filename mirroring, ADR-ID match, Status byte-equality. Pre-commit hook intentionally not added; run on demand or in CI. - tests/test_verify_adr_lang_pairs.py: 11 cases including CRLF/LF normalization, em-dash title separator, underscore-slug edge case. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
103 lines
3.9 KiB
Markdown
103 lines
3.9 KiB
Markdown
# ADR-0002: Routing Distance, Ordering & Bypass Rules
|
|
|
|
## Status
|
|
Accepted
|
|
|
|
## Date
|
|
2026-02-27
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
The KernBench Graph Latency Simulator must compare kernel execution time
|
|
across different architectures and topologies by computing end-to-end
|
|
latency from graph traversal.
|
|
|
|
To support meaningful comparison:
|
|
- routing must be deterministic
|
|
- latency must reflect actual interconnect structure
|
|
- local vs remote traffic must be distinguishable
|
|
- “bypass” optimizations must not undermine debuggability or correctness
|
|
|
|
The simulator also aims to avoid software-managed metadata and hidden
|
|
shortcuts that obscure control paths.
|
|
|
|
## Decision
|
|
|
|
### D1. Distance is accumulated latency, not hop count
|
|
- Routing “distance” is defined as the **sum of per-node and per-link latency**.
|
|
- Hop count alone must not be used for ordering or path selection.
|
|
- Size-aware serialization latency (bytes / BW) contributes to distance.
|
|
|
|
### D2. Routing order is derived from graph traversal
|
|
- The chosen route is the path with minimum accumulated latency
|
|
given the constructed graph and routing policy.
|
|
- Deterministic ordering must be guaranteed for identical inputs
|
|
(topology + policy + request).
|
|
|
|
### D3. Bypass is explicit and graph-represented
|
|
- All paths must be explicitly represented in the graph and subject to latency accumulation.
|
|
- Example: PE_DMA connects to the NOC router mesh (ADR-0017 D7). All destinations
|
|
(HBM, shared SRAM, inter-cube UCIe) are reached via explicit mesh hops.
|
|
Local HBM access has minimal hops (switching overhead only); remote access
|
|
traverses additional routers.
|
|
- Implicit or “magic” bypass paths are disallowed.
|
|
|
|
### D4. No zero-latency end-to-end paths
|
|
|
|
- Every routed request must incur **end-to-end** latency > 0.
|
|
- Individual fabric segments (e.g., NOC hops) MAY have distance_mm = 0
|
|
when the fabric is distributed and distance is not meaningful at that granularity.
|
|
This is allowed because other components on the same path (e.g., PE_DMA, SRAM,
|
|
UCIe endpoints) contribute non-zero latency, ensuring the end-to-end invariant holds.
|
|
- Fully zero-latency end-to-end paths are disallowed, except for explicit
|
|
test-only stubs clearly marked as such.
|
|
|
|
### D5. Policy vs topology responsibility split
|
|
- Topology builder:
|
|
- defines nodes and links and their latency/BW parameters
|
|
- Routing policy:
|
|
- selects among available graph paths based on decoded domains
|
|
- Routing policy must not assume missing links; missing connectivity
|
|
is a topology construction error.
|
|
|
|
### D6. No software-managed routing metadata
|
|
- Routing decisions must not rely on per-request software-managed metadata
|
|
that tracks distance, hop count, or ordering outside the graph model.
|
|
- All distance/order computation is derived from traversal itself.
|
|
|
|
## Alternatives Considered
|
|
|
|
1) **Hop-count based routing**
|
|
- Rejected: ignores heterogeneous latency/BW and misrepresents
|
|
architectural differences.
|
|
|
|
2) **Implicit local shortcuts**
|
|
- Rejected: breaks debuggability and violates traversal-based latency.
|
|
|
|
3) **Software-managed distance metadata**
|
|
- Rejected: increases control overhead and obscures routing semantics.
|
|
|
|
## Consequences
|
|
|
|
### Positive
|
|
- Clear, debuggable hop-by-hop traces (SPEC R2, R4).
|
|
- Architecture comparisons reflect real interconnect structure.
|
|
- Routing behavior is reproducible and deterministic.
|
|
|
|
### Tradeoffs / Costs
|
|
- Graph construction must be correct and complete.
|
|
- Bypass modeling requires explicit graph representation,
|
|
which slightly increases topology description complexity.
|
|
|
|
## Implementation Notes (Non-normative)
|
|
- Recommended responsibilities:
|
|
- Graph builder: ensure all required paths exist.
|
|
- Router: select next hop based on decoded domains and policy.
|
|
- Tests should assert:
|
|
- non-zero end-to-end latency
|
|
- deterministic routing for identical inputs
|
|
- bypass paths appear explicitly in emitted traces
|
|
|
|
## Links
|
|
- SPEC.md: R1 (routing), R2 (latency), R3 (topology), R5 (multi-domain comm)
|
|
- ADR-0001: PhysAddr layout & decoding contract
|