From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] Adjust wording for NUMA vs. socket ID in DPDK
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 14:46:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <84df3e19-f6cb-4a32-9360-a4384ce4c2ac@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F6B6@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
On 9/6/2024 2:37 PM, Morten Brørup wrote:
>> From: Anatoly Burakov [mailto:anatoly.burakov@intel.com]
>> Sent: Friday, 6 September 2024 13.47
>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] Adjust wording for NUMA vs. socket ID in DPDK
>>
>> While initially, DPDK has used the term "socket ID" to refer to physical
>> package
>> ID, the last time DPDK read "physical_package_id" for socket ID was ~9 years
>> ago, so it's been a while since we've actually switched over to using the term
>> "socket" to mean "NUMA node".
>>
>> This wasn't a problem before, as most systems had one NUMA node per physical
>> socket. However, in the last few years, more and more systems have multiple
>> NUMA
>> nodes per physical CPU socket. Since DPDK used NUMA nodes already, the
>> transition was pretty seamless, however now we're faced with a situation when
>> most of our documentation still uses outdated terms, and our API is ripe with
>> references to "sockets" when in actuality we mean "NUMA nodes". This could be
>> a
>> source of confusion.
>>
>> While completely renaming all of our API's would be a huge effort, will take a
>> long time and arguably wouldn't even be worth the API breakages (given that
>> this
>> mismatch between terminology and reality is implicitly understood by most
>> people
>> working on DPDK, and so this isn't so much of a problem in practice), we can
>> do
>> some tweaks around the edges and at least document this unfortunate reality.
>>
>> This patchset suggests the following changes:
>>
>> - Update rte_socket/rte_lcore documentation to refer to NUMA nodes rather than
>> sockets - Rename internal structures' fields to better reflect this intention
>> -
>> Rename --socket-mem/--socket-limit flags to refer to NUMA rather than sockets
>> -
>> Add internal API to get physical package ID [1]
>>
>> The documentation is updated to refer to new EAL flags, but is otherwise left
>> untouched, and instead the entry in "glossary" is amended to indicate that
>> when
>> DPDK documentation refers to "sockets", it actually means "NUMA ID's". As next
>> steps, we could rename all API parameters to refer to NUMA ID rather than
>> socket
>> ID - this would not break neither API nor ABI, and instead would be a
>> documentation change in practice.
>>
>> [1] This could be used to group lcores by physical package, see e.g.
>> discussion
>> under this patch:
>> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/cover/20240827151014.201-1-
>> vipin.varghese@amd.com/
>
> Thank you for cleaning this up, Anatoly.
>
> I would prefer to take one more step and also rename functions and parameters, e.g. rte_socket_id() -> rte_numa_id().
>
> For backwards compatibility, macros/functions with the old names can be added.
>
I don't think we can do such changes without deprecation notices, but
it's a good candidate for next release.
I have thought about including parameter renames in this patchset, but
for now I decided against doing so. I can certainly include this in the
next revision if that's something community is willing to accept.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-06 12:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-06 11:47 Anatoly Burakov
2024-09-06 11:47 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/5] eal: update socket ID API documentation Anatoly Burakov
2024-09-06 11:47 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/5] lcore: rename socket ID to NUMA ID Anatoly Burakov
2024-09-06 11:47 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/5] eal: rename socket ID to NUMA ID in internal config Anatoly Burakov
2024-09-06 11:47 ` [RFC PATCH v1 4/5] eal: rename --socket-mem/--socket-limit Anatoly Burakov
2024-09-09 7:42 ` fengchengwen
2024-09-06 11:47 ` [RFC PATCH v1 5/5] lcore: store physical package ID internally Anatoly Burakov
2024-09-09 7:49 ` fengchengwen
2024-09-06 12:37 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] Adjust wording for NUMA vs. socket ID in DPDK Morten Brørup
2024-09-06 12:46 ` Burakov, Anatoly [this message]
2024-09-06 13:02 ` Morten Brørup
2024-09-06 13:07 ` Bruce Richardson
2024-09-06 13:17 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2024-09-06 13:58 ` Morten Brørup
2024-09-09 7:51 ` fengchengwen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=84df3e19-f6cb-4a32-9360-a4384ce4c2ac@intel.com \
--to=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).