From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f52.google.com (mail-oi0-f52.google.com [209.85.218.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D093239 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:09:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: by oibi136 with SMTP id i136so116556787oib.3 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 01:09:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qSnQn/5Mzoa7U7OsKbUd0fyMrxUC7pO7KziWfQReN2c=; b=SHax8gg7+O1LkU8FndUWQgtXoT940uP4IIvFGK9s6s5fa7iDAiKiziCLqCI9RBFTyn 7uYv/UcHRNA5eJ3gHkM3D3Up4fVNv60NjUtK+1v7xI1jOwcsZTHCWWD/HPB1uOf2TC6H KWQw4Tc1ZcFdmzopiNAyaH4Ezhoiq02TPTv4vPB6KUqG4vPZCe5Zhph19XLrE9nkvLIT /fI77DZ+1aa3y8yZmN3AiTe1BBn39/dVCWYJMKVdAkOwORLXPOOHtjocn4b6sqrdM/Wv cxQNqcTKZr7wh5QCbpm6Jzd8pzr8kOQa9a37KhlIjuNyS6d4tnlH2Q/wHBjABAjfNm7D 6iYw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnLgzdUQQdIAXrwttMtOwCroeivBbI2IwiLZX72S2Uwt4tfcv8xVV8yJAxgVNrdICDa17M0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.109.170 with SMTP id ht10mr22250296obb.62.1442390956738; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 01:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.150.166 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 01:09:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55F8CDC4.9040409@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1439554788-31037-1-git-send-email-chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <55F7CCE9.8060807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150915090122.GA27696@bricha3-MOBL3> <55F8CDC4.9040409@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:09:16 +0200 Message-ID: From: David Marchand To: Chao Zhu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Fwd: [PATCH] PPC: Fix NUMA node numbering on IBM POWER8 LE machine X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:09:17 -0000 Hello Chao, On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:02 AM, Chao Zhu wrote: > Actually, without this change, DPDK can't work properly on PPC64 little > endian platform. It'll report "EAL: Not enough memory available! Requested: > xxxMB, available: xxxMB" such kind of error. But for users, they don't know > that changing the value of CONFIG_RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES can fix this. That > why I invoke this patch. Sorry, I forgot to reply in this thread. Well, to me, this is a workaround. Yes it will work, but what happens if tomorrow we have some hardware that tells us that it has some numa node which 60000 index ? I think we need a rework in eal to proerly handle this, like I said in this mail : http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/023630.html Do you think you can look into this ? Thanks. -- David Marchand