From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FBB4C76 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:43:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B3321391; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:43:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:43:29 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=fKaz/txKoK0olRmSLdXmiV9P3m tAwPzlrZCM0iF0uHI=; b=E3Ptyp2Nhi+qo91/Js+TV1DsrTGTsvAxQ44/Zow6Eq vwlF+kMnp03vamfo3dMOQdJjtPOjOTPQj0lsohpkxjs4rUHidkot+VTrNeHf7bcZ oGwl3J+WFRD0Df9dytOBkjIH+LJdDIUfE8FxdEKEMgTxOd/9VltMhldP8bS9Ay2W 8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=fKaz/t xKoK0olRmSLdXmiV9P3mtAwPzlrZCM0iF0uHI=; b=Y3RUBDcCtCW+NA1K4Ns6Nt flgxSAIjHsWmNMYE6x7JZY45SWzwgiP8umZTV1ltJmczpCYFkqPy0ZFFmgAKQ7DH RJkuvO4uDWBB2HZwJdACseR4r32FRwj672yDgkDwd7NNCAZ3hnKMisQ2X4txY44H z5Ippu44605R0uB55zYmsjgBhnJ0wmaxr0NCIPNEjLD++mgMnM1jC2l0g+ICvG/u LJYW5QOUhEuBDsaBsb2B/re6dNYgSSJUizCsjRk/JJijlFjy/4eHlq39G/a6zis8 eKHyWnG3PR37u8OgaXZ7lZa6DXSsSmbF8GCEDVsGrZkgMqy+zhQqVSnPJb1mgiQg == X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E3C5C7E13C; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:43:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Burakov, Anatoly" , Bruce Richardson , Chao Zhu Cc: dev@dpdk.org, gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:43:14 +0100 Message-ID: <1616173.z6xibKYU3a@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <750e30c6dcc7a22a87df9c56fb824042b1db984f.1517848624.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com> <20180308121229.GA8660@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 18.05 v4] eal: add function to return number of detected sockets X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 22:43:30 -0000 08/03/2018 15:38, Burakov, Anatoly: > On 08-Mar-18 12:12 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > Question: we are ok assuming that the socket numbers are sequential, or > > nearly so, and knowing the maximum socket number seen is a good > > approximation of the actual physical sockets? I know in terms of cores > > on a system, the core id's often jump - are there systems where the > > socket numbers do too? > > I am not aware of any system that would jump sockets like that. I'm open > to corrections, however :) I think some IBM CPUs had this kind of jump in socket numbering. Chao?