Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: limit default numa node to used devices

[Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>]

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.

> 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 <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
> [...]
>> -	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.
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.

Thanks,
Sergio