From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB1B231E for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 17:47:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2017 08:47:29 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,390,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="1153889943" Received: from smonroyx-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.5]) ([10.237.221.5]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2017 08:47:28 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon References: <20170721091119.15701-1-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <1688226.sl7kgNVU6i@xps> <7842270.506WcGqqe5@xps> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, nic@opencloud.tech From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:47:27 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7842270.506WcGqqe5@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: limit default numa node to used devices 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: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:47:30 -0000 On 21/07/2017 16:37, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 21/07/2017 18:03, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: >> On 21/07/2017 15:53, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> The title and the text below should explain that you move >>> the warning log from scan to probe, thanks to a temporary >>> negative value. >> I thought that saying that I only check for devices managed by dpdk >> explains the purpose, >> and the patch itself shows the change from one file to another. > It is obvious when you look carefully at the code, yes. > I was just giving my help to better explain :) Just giving my view of the commit message If you think it can be improve,by all meansfeel free to change it :) >>> 21/07/2017 12:11, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: >>>> Commit 8a04cb612589 ("pci: set default numa node for broken systems") >>>> added logic to default to NUMA node 0 when sysfs numa_node information >>>> was wrong or not available. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately there are many devices with wrong NUMA node information >>>> that DPDK does not care about but still show warnings for them. >>>> >>>> Instead, only check for invalid NUMA node information for devices >>>> managed by the DPDK. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy >>> [...] >>>> - if (eal_parse_sysfs_value(filename, &tmp) == 0 && >>>> - tmp < RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES) >>>> + if (eal_parse_sysfs_value(filename, &tmp) == 0) >>>> dev->device.numa_node = tmp; >>> Why are you removing the check of the value? >>> Are you going to accept invalid high values? >>> This check was introduced on purpose by this commit: >>> http://dpdk.org/commit/8a04cb6125 >> tmp is unsigned long type, so -1 is going to be a large number. > Oh yes, I missed it was unsigned! > >> My understanding was that it was basically checking for -1 as numa_node. >> >> If we have valid numa_node greater than RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES, defaulting >> to 0 is not a good idea, is it? >> >> What I try to achieve with the patch is: >> - if no numa_node avilable then parse is going to fail and we set -1. >> - if numa_node is present but wrong, my understanding was that it would >> be -1. > All your explanations make sense when you realize that it is unsigned. > > I have one more question, > Does it work to check for a negative value like this? > if (dev->device.numa_node < 0) numa_node is signed int type in struct rte_device, so it should work. Regards, Sergio