* [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] mem: fix undefined behavior in NUMA code @ 2018-08-29 12:21 ` Anatoly Burakov 2018-08-29 13:02 ` Ilya Maximets 2018-09-20 12:50 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Anatoly Burakov 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Anatoly Burakov @ 2018-08-29 12:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dev; +Cc: solal.pirelli, i.maximets, stable When NUMA-aware hugepages config option is set, we rely on libnuma to tell the kernel to allocate hugepages on a specific NUMA node. However, we allocate node mask before we check if NUMA is available in the first place, which, according to the manpage [1], causes undefined behaviour. Fix by only using nodemask when we have NUMA available. [1] https://linux.die.net/man/3/numa_alloc_onnode Bugzilla ID: 20 Fixes: 1b72605d2416 ("mem: balanced allocation of hugepages") Cc: i.maximets@samsung.com Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> --- lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 28 ++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c index dbf19499e..4976eeacd 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, int node_id = -1; int essential_prev = 0; int oldpolicy; - struct bitmask *oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); + struct bitmask *oldmask = NULL; bool have_numa = true; unsigned long maxnode = 0; @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, if (have_numa) { RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Trying to obtain current memory policy.\n"); + oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); if (get_mempolicy(&oldpolicy, oldmask->maskp, oldmask->size + 1, 0, 0) < 0) { RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, @@ -390,19 +391,22 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, out: #ifdef RTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES - if (maxnode) { - RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, - "Restoring previous memory policy: %d\n", oldpolicy); - if (oldpolicy == MPOL_DEFAULT) { - numa_set_localalloc(); - } else if (set_mempolicy(oldpolicy, oldmask->maskp, - oldmask->size + 1) < 0) { - RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Failed to restore mempolicy: %s\n", - strerror(errno)); - numa_set_localalloc(); + if (have_numa) { + if (maxnode) { + RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, + "Restoring previous memory policy: %d\n", + oldpolicy); + if (oldpolicy == MPOL_DEFAULT) { + numa_set_localalloc(); + } else if (set_mempolicy(oldpolicy, oldmask->maskp, + oldmask->size + 1) < 0) { + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Failed to restore mempolicy: %s\n", + strerror(errno)); + numa_set_localalloc(); + } } + numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); } - numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); #endif return i; } -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] mem: fix undefined behavior in NUMA code 2018-08-29 12:21 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] mem: fix undefined behavior in NUMA code Anatoly Burakov @ 2018-08-29 13:02 ` Ilya Maximets 2018-09-20 12:50 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Anatoly Burakov 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Ilya Maximets @ 2018-08-29 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anatoly Burakov, dev; +Cc: solal.pirelli, stable Hi. Thanks for the fix. Comments inline. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. On 29.08.2018 15:21, Anatoly Burakov wrote: > When NUMA-aware hugepages config option is set, we rely on > libnuma to tell the kernel to allocate hugepages on a specific > NUMA node. However, we allocate node mask before we check if > NUMA is available in the first place, which, according to > the manpage [1], causes undefined behaviour. > > Fix by only using nodemask when we have NUMA available. > > [1] https://linux.die.net/man/3/numa_alloc_onnode > > Bugzilla ID: 20 > > Fixes: 1b72605d2416 ("mem: balanced allocation of hugepages") > Cc: i.maximets@samsung.com > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> > --- > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 28 ++++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c > index dbf19499e..4976eeacd 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c > @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, > int node_id = -1; > int essential_prev = 0; > int oldpolicy; > - struct bitmask *oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); > + struct bitmask *oldmask = NULL; > bool have_numa = true; > unsigned long maxnode = 0; > > @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, > > if (have_numa) { > RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Trying to obtain current memory policy.\n"); > + oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); > if (get_mempolicy(&oldpolicy, oldmask->maskp, > oldmask->size + 1, 0, 0) < 0) { > RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, > @@ -390,19 +391,22 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, > > out: > #ifdef RTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES > - if (maxnode) { > - RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, > - "Restoring previous memory policy: %d\n", oldpolicy); > - if (oldpolicy == MPOL_DEFAULT) { > - numa_set_localalloc(); > - } else if (set_mempolicy(oldpolicy, oldmask->maskp, > - oldmask->size + 1) < 0) { > - RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Failed to restore mempolicy: %s\n", > - strerror(errno)); > - numa_set_localalloc(); > + if (have_numa) { > + if (maxnode) { > + RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, > + "Restoring previous memory policy: %d\n", > + oldpolicy); > + if (oldpolicy == MPOL_DEFAULT) { > + numa_set_localalloc(); > + } else if (set_mempolicy(oldpolicy, oldmask->maskp, > + oldmask->size + 1) < 0) { > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Failed to restore mempolicy: %s\n", > + strerror(errno)); > + numa_set_localalloc(); > + } > } > + numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); > } > - numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); The original intend was to avoid ugly nested 'if's as possible. 'maxnode' is only initialized in NUMA case. So, there is no need to check for 'has_numa'. 'numa_free_cpumask' has 'free' semantics and checks for the argument. It is safe to call it with NULL. If you want to be fully compliant with man page, you may use less invasive change like this: --- diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c index dbf19499e..d0b9f3a2f 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c @@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, out: #ifdef RTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES - if (maxnode) { + if (have_numa && maxnode) { RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Restoring previous memory policy: %d\n", oldpolicy); if (oldpolicy == MPOL_DEFAULT) { @@ -402,7 +402,8 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, numa_set_localalloc(); } } - numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); + if (oldmask) + numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); #endif return i; } --- But still, checking both 'have_numa && maxnode', IMHO, is unnecessary. As this change is cosmetic (issue doesn't produce any real bug), I'd like to avoid changing the functional code to something less readable. This also will complicate 'git blame' process. What do you think? > #endif > return i; > } > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] mem: fix undefined behavior in NUMA code 2018-08-29 12:21 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] mem: fix undefined behavior in NUMA code Anatoly Burakov 2018-08-29 13:02 ` Ilya Maximets @ 2018-09-20 12:50 ` Anatoly Burakov 2018-09-21 6:47 ` Ilya Maximets 2018-09-21 9:27 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] " Anatoly Burakov 1 sibling, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Anatoly Burakov @ 2018-09-20 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dev; +Cc: solal.pirelli, i.maximets, stable When NUMA-aware hugepages config option is set, we rely on libnuma to tell the kernel to allocate hugepages on a specific NUMA node. However, we allocate node mask before we check if NUMA is available in the first place, which, according to the manpage [1], causes undefined behaviour. Fix by only using nodemask when we have NUMA available. [1] https://linux.die.net/man/3/numa_alloc_onnode Bugzilla ID: 20 Fixes: 1b72605d2416 ("mem: balanced allocation of hugepages") Cc: i.maximets@samsung.com Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> --- lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c index dbf19499e..1a2a84a65 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, int node_id = -1; int essential_prev = 0; int oldpolicy; - struct bitmask *oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); + struct bitmask *oldmask = NULL; bool have_numa = true; unsigned long maxnode = 0; @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, if (have_numa) { RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Trying to obtain current memory policy.\n"); + oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); if (get_mempolicy(&oldpolicy, oldmask->maskp, oldmask->size + 1, 0, 0) < 0) { RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, @@ -401,8 +402,8 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, strerror(errno)); numa_set_localalloc(); } + numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); } - numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); #endif return i; } -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] mem: fix undefined behavior in NUMA code 2018-09-20 12:50 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Anatoly Burakov @ 2018-09-21 6:47 ` Ilya Maximets 2018-09-21 8:57 ` Burakov, Anatoly 2018-09-21 9:27 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] " Anatoly Burakov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ilya Maximets @ 2018-09-21 6:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anatoly Burakov, dev; +Cc: solal.pirelli, stable On 20.09.2018 15:50, Anatoly Burakov wrote: > When NUMA-aware hugepages config option is set, we rely on > libnuma to tell the kernel to allocate hugepages on a specific > NUMA node. However, we allocate node mask before we check if > NUMA is available in the first place, which, according to > the manpage [1], causes undefined behaviour. > > Fix by only using nodemask when we have NUMA available. > > [1] https://linux.die.net/man/3/numa_alloc_onnode > > Bugzilla ID: 20 > > Fixes: 1b72605d2416 ("mem: balanced allocation of hugepages") > Cc: i.maximets@samsung.com > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> > --- > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c > index dbf19499e..1a2a84a65 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c > @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, > int node_id = -1; > int essential_prev = 0; > int oldpolicy; > - struct bitmask *oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); > + struct bitmask *oldmask = NULL; > bool have_numa = true; > unsigned long maxnode = 0; > > @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, > > if (have_numa) { > RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Trying to obtain current memory policy.\n"); > + oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); > if (get_mempolicy(&oldpolicy, oldmask->maskp, > oldmask->size + 1, 0, 0) < 0) { > RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, > @@ -401,8 +402,8 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, > strerror(errno)); > numa_set_localalloc(); > } > + numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); > } > - numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); There will be 'oldmask' leak in case no 'socket-mem' requested. > #endif > return i; > } > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] mem: fix undefined behavior in NUMA code 2018-09-21 6:47 ` Ilya Maximets @ 2018-09-21 8:57 ` Burakov, Anatoly 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Burakov, Anatoly @ 2018-09-21 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ilya Maximets, dev; +Cc: solal.pirelli, stable On 21-Sep-18 7:47 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 20.09.2018 15:50, Anatoly Burakov wrote: >> When NUMA-aware hugepages config option is set, we rely on >> libnuma to tell the kernel to allocate hugepages on a specific >> NUMA node. However, we allocate node mask before we check if >> NUMA is available in the first place, which, according to >> the manpage [1], causes undefined behaviour. >> >> Fix by only using nodemask when we have NUMA available. >> >> [1] https://linux.die.net/man/3/numa_alloc_onnode >> >> Bugzilla ID: 20 >> >> Fixes: 1b72605d2416 ("mem: balanced allocation of hugepages") >> Cc: i.maximets@samsung.com >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org >> >> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> >> --- >> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 5 +++-- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c >> index dbf19499e..1a2a84a65 100644 >> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c >> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c >> @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, >> int node_id = -1; >> int essential_prev = 0; >> int oldpolicy; >> - struct bitmask *oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); >> + struct bitmask *oldmask = NULL; >> bool have_numa = true; >> unsigned long maxnode = 0; >> >> @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, >> >> if (have_numa) { >> RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Trying to obtain current memory policy.\n"); >> + oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); >> if (get_mempolicy(&oldpolicy, oldmask->maskp, >> oldmask->size + 1, 0, 0) < 0) { >> RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, >> @@ -401,8 +402,8 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, >> strerror(errno)); >> numa_set_localalloc(); >> } >> + numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); >> } >> - numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); > > There will be 'oldmask' leak in case no 'socket-mem' requested. Oh, right, you're correct! > >> #endif >> return i; >> } >> > -- Thanks, Anatoly ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] mem: fix undefined behavior in NUMA code 2018-09-20 12:50 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Anatoly Burakov 2018-09-21 6:47 ` Ilya Maximets @ 2018-09-21 9:27 ` Anatoly Burakov 2018-09-21 11:02 ` Ilya Maximets 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Anatoly Burakov @ 2018-09-21 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dev; +Cc: solal.pirelli, i.maximets, stable When NUMA-aware hugepages config option is set, we rely on libnuma to tell the kernel to allocate hugepages on a specific NUMA node. However, we allocate node mask before we check if NUMA is available in the first place, which, according to the manpage [1], causes undefined behaviour. Fix by only using nodemask when we have NUMA available. [1] https://linux.die.net/man/3/numa_alloc_onnode Bugzilla ID: 20 Fixes: 1b72605d2416 ("mem: balanced allocation of hugepages") Cc: i.maximets@samsung.com Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> --- Notes: v3: - Fix potential memory leak if socket-mem was not specified v2: - Improve readability as per Ilya's comment lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c index dbf19499e..7747ee6df 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, int node_id = -1; int essential_prev = 0; int oldpolicy; - struct bitmask *oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); + struct bitmask *oldmask = NULL; bool have_numa = true; unsigned long maxnode = 0; @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, if (have_numa) { RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Trying to obtain current memory policy.\n"); + oldmask = numa_allocate_nodemask(); if (get_mempolicy(&oldpolicy, oldmask->maskp, oldmask->size + 1, 0, 0) < 0) { RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, @@ -402,7 +403,8 @@ map_all_hugepages(struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl, struct hugepage_info *hpi, numa_set_localalloc(); } } - numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); + if (oldmask != NULL) + numa_free_cpumask(oldmask); #endif return i; } -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] mem: fix undefined behavior in NUMA code 2018-09-21 9:27 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] " Anatoly Burakov @ 2018-09-21 11:02 ` Ilya Maximets 2018-10-03 22:36 ` Thomas Monjalon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ilya Maximets @ 2018-09-21 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anatoly Burakov, dev; +Cc: solal.pirelli, stable On 21.09.2018 12:27, Anatoly Burakov wrote: > When NUMA-aware hugepages config option is set, we rely on > libnuma to tell the kernel to allocate hugepages on a specific > NUMA node. However, we allocate node mask before we check if > NUMA is available in the first place, which, according to > the manpage [1], causes undefined behaviour. > > Fix by only using nodemask when we have NUMA available. > > [1] https://linux.die.net/man/3/numa_alloc_onnode > > Bugzilla ID: 20 > > Fixes: 1b72605d2416 ("mem: balanced allocation of hugepages") > Cc: i.maximets@samsung.com > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> > --- > > Notes: > v3: > - Fix potential memory leak if socket-mem was not specified > > v2: > - Improve readability as per Ilya's comment > > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) LGTM, Acked-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] mem: fix undefined behavior in NUMA code 2018-09-21 11:02 ` Ilya Maximets @ 2018-10-03 22:36 ` Thomas Monjalon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2018-10-03 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anatoly Burakov; +Cc: stable, Ilya Maximets, dev, solal.pirelli 21/09/2018 13:02, Ilya Maximets: > On 21.09.2018 12:27, Anatoly Burakov wrote: > > When NUMA-aware hugepages config option is set, we rely on > > libnuma to tell the kernel to allocate hugepages on a specific > > NUMA node. However, we allocate node mask before we check if > > NUMA is available in the first place, which, according to > > the manpage [1], causes undefined behaviour. > > > > Fix by only using nodemask when we have NUMA available. > > > > [1] https://linux.die.net/man/3/numa_alloc_onnode > > > > Bugzilla ID: 20 > > > > Fixes: 1b72605d2416 ("mem: balanced allocation of hugepages") > > Cc: i.maximets@samsung.com > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> > > --- > > > > Notes: > > v3: > > - Fix potential memory leak if socket-mem was not specified > > > > v2: > > - Improve readability as per Ilya's comment > > > > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 6 ++++-- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > LGTM, > Acked-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com> Applied, thanks ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-10-03 22:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CGME20180829122139epcas1p13ad45026365d788c072f2ed7a38349fb@epcas1p1.samsung.com>
2018-08-29 12:21 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] mem: fix undefined behavior in NUMA code Anatoly Burakov
2018-08-29 13:02 ` Ilya Maximets
2018-09-20 12:50 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Anatoly Burakov
2018-09-21 6:47 ` Ilya Maximets
2018-09-21 8:57 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2018-09-21 9:27 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] " Anatoly Burakov
2018-09-21 11:02 ` Ilya Maximets
2018-10-03 22:36 ` Thomas Monjalon
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).