From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FFCEA0A0F; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 09:24:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FFE41231; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 09:24:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C4541221 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 09:24:55 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1625037894; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Q/skYA/ul8ekI9Iupfb+vlGzLhgrmd1GKajXfiJEMCc=; b=ZlL1gOIM7sKSnYLSQd16zkApkYSErGzFRF3ZuiN67EFUEiq8+fLUCPUrHPBZMhg4B0x5Fr jR0ML3ifRUYjjNMUHBVEhoej8/bN5k86JgyHAyDj8HWAAd5AWX6cC00ISvlubY8sODV4bL f2EmYgjlSFjKAkj6zJsfmOSje4zIgtA= Received: from mail-vs1-f71.google.com (mail-vs1-f71.google.com [209.85.217.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-448-OTdGoVM4NrO_R2oSKXekBQ-1; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 03:24:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: OTdGoVM4NrO_R2oSKXekBQ-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f71.google.com with SMTP id v27-20020a67c89b0000b02902227f70aa8fso652198vsk.6 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:24:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q/skYA/ul8ekI9Iupfb+vlGzLhgrmd1GKajXfiJEMCc=; b=SCpMhzi42FidwNscTcNa1aRXpz03Vux9fsMiPeEvcW9y0GPrT7IHTAAr2omJtSLf+H EoIOTy7x6qj0WVnx5xePrLUT71qtR6T8kIdyNRqkv6heJc4HOv8JvpzbR+RG+5u2Y7sN 0YbgiYFjZDm1SAYJh5msDGTrksasl0Ag6uo4EGH9SgLhinaFWiIwAXG8N8xvAsBfInwz n1rW8xFYuREZlpFfVCVGVSc2nMBP5KCdTt2u6lUWg3tWVcedyVnDXyCOCfKgd/M6AH0p GLYiZGcpZUsDEXSqJoUEB6udk3oKbmC4qjaUEXqLqjyE+OdKCu2R+zY6buQ2DU8I/D0T cdQw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530JU3CIQ4IVfS4RO1TkHAFlWkAzORsoT67aGWt85gO48paXAHDS HUiJaKoW5GLYod78hTYsyfeIb/f75lttlwGEubd5YHuUrsKlh/DURtQX7+HhBIfTBe3i5M57vqv IRmQuihMiqfcgAu6MWcY= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:1484:: with SMTP id d4mr17492983uae.86.1625037888124; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:24:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzY1QuDYLdQI+zpGj0K3gbhJfpbjL1dK96XrQJHelw65QVgt3k2S05oS91hhOnroieTjeQARAaT4YEPk/xBYR0= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:1484:: with SMTP id d4mr17492971uae.86.1625037887964; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:24:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210629161133.79472-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> <20210629161133.79472-5-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20210629161133.79472-5-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 09:24:36 +0200 Message-ID: To: Maxime Coquelin Cc: dev , "Xia, Chenbo" , dpdk stable Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 4/7] vhost: fix NUMA reallocation with multiqueue X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 6:11 PM Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > Since the Vhost-user device initialization has been reworked, > enabling the application to start using the device as soon as > the first queue pair is ready, NUMA reallocation no more > happened on queue pairs other than the first one since > numa_realloc() was returning early if the device was running. > > This patch fixes this issue by only preventing the device > metadata to be allocated if the device is running. For the Hum, I understand the meaning, but I think we could make it easier to read: This patch fixes this issue by reallocating the device metadata only if the device is not running. WDYT? > virtqueues, a vring state change notification is sent to > notify the application of its disablement. Since the callback > is supposed to be blocking, it is safe to reallocate it > afterwards. -- David Marchand