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 45063A034C; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 15:57:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E40F40A7F; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 15:57:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE0440A7A for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 15:57:35 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1671634654; 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=Nl5q8qvDM+Q+RIoIQfVJDq2HIB2Ps8Q69L2W4mG2hL8=; b=TkMpKstRUFWd8Un6+K7LRWd2ARiqDGXxFlB0ly3mtMbm0qJUsgUrLb+gG0XY9Lfg4aFaJf vYB7jyXqJp1YJmzxPEkSnI/jFOqpWDlG/c2RC2yWDY2JfcsAvNN8zIib65/x2PGo+3bm1v y7ju0pr2orr6tWFwr3/e2ZNlsYRqEf8= Received: from mail-pj1-f71.google.com (mail-pj1-f71.google.com [209.85.216.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-3-K3D14kxNNRm_1zW3jR87nw-1; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 09:57:33 -0500 X-MC-Unique: K3D14kxNNRm_1zW3jR87nw-1 Received: by mail-pj1-f71.google.com with SMTP id z4-20020a17090ab10400b002195a146546so1367874pjq.9 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:57:33 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Nl5q8qvDM+Q+RIoIQfVJDq2HIB2Ps8Q69L2W4mG2hL8=; b=j5mxQft3Z8VpB+59boXYyMu34/rakVm6Oaz1qlCBRBfbcaTowDO4JprQYDtSKDFbJ3 GOHRWE5d4AIUevLtDMwXs+DxRzKpNgzRUJxHI/oYfCA3wkk9AIRDN8sls/qXNlcW0ypi IP2BiSpT9kfe3Zu6ckcFKIHzBlgEf/7+4RqN6oEV4EYL9d/dWlYVlDuIz2pDoKRLYdPR lNMHjyW+LNx1bAjKSBaScypmcZ6r22sWpe0zOC6k0oFRSg7e0c8T/9SaKFgvmiijjLc3 VNKyK+0ksx1MKzjneDfiQdaW06I84diEGNHmK/Ok6z7xg+9CF0ZesMg8chOqCt/S++7v 3zjA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kpRklpS33TdzgnXdVqQSR5Vk9Ptg2I/MhtiPv8nsBrOFObpPEyS CGTJ3IGBAFJmXhK7rhM7QkSm7HHSJ25Eg0NjG4B4eduS0DgkQHgCpHnp7QOHTpnG9cUtwEf7J49 bEoCeO85cfk+ok4/ilKE= X-Received: by 2002:a62:6502:0:b0:56b:b520:3751 with SMTP id z2-20020a626502000000b0056bb5203751mr164464pfb.29.1671634652539; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:57:32 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXuY9Yc0tuKGFU3rhQGKVnEthz6szmx9ULQ66326ZCid2XaCigWQgp5eGZvO9ZxLszdZQ5k5+QMgdZ1EnvJgiwk= X-Received: by 2002:a62:6502:0:b0:56b:b520:3751 with SMTP id z2-20020a626502000000b0056bb5203751mr164462pfb.29.1671634652269; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:57:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221221104858.296530-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20221221104858.296530-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 15:57:21 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] malloc: enhance NUMA affinity heuristic To: Min Zhou Cc: dev@dpdk.org, olivier.matz@6wind.com, ferruh.yigit@amd.com, kaisenx.you@intel.com, Anatoly Burakov , Bruce Richardson X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 Hello Min, On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:49 AM David Marchand wrote: > > Trying to allocate memory on the first detected numa node has less > chance to find some memory actually available rather than on the main > lcore numa node (especially when the DPDK application is started only > on one numa node). > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand I see a failure in the loongarch CI. Running binary with argv[]:'/home/zhoumin/dpdk/build/app/test/dpdk-test' '--file-prefix=eal_flags_c_opt_autotest' '--proc-type=secondary' '--lcores' '0-1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6),7' Error - process did not run ok with valid corelist value Test Failed The logs don't give the full picture (though it is not LoongArch CI fault). I tried to read back on past mail exchanges about the loongarch server, but I did not find the info. I suspect cores 5 to 7 belong to different numa nodes, can you confirm? I'll post a new revision to account for this case. -- David Marchand