From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
"You, KaisenX" <kaisenx.you@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Zhou, YidingX" <yidingx.zhou@intel.com>,
"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
"Matz, Olivier" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"ferruh.yigit@amd.com" <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>,
"zhoumin@loongson.cn" <zhoumin@loongson.cn>,
"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>,
bruce.richardson@intel.com, jerinj@marvell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] enhance NUMA affinity heuristic
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 15:07:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4598779.O6GEm4j1yj@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR11MB67659D4EA0E7569A4C16841DE1A09@SJ0PR11MB6765.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
I'm not comfortable with this patch.
First, there is no comment in the code which helps to understand the logic.
Second, I'm afraid changing the value of the per-core variable _socket_id
may have an impact on some applications.
16/02/2023 03:50, You, KaisenX:
> From: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
> > On 2/1/2023 12:20 PM, Kaisen You 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).
> > >
> > > Fixes: 705356f0811f ("eal: simplify control thread creation")
> > > Fixes: bb0bd346d5c1 ("eal: suggest using --lcores option")
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Kaisen You <kaisenx.you@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes since v4:
> > > - mod the patch title,
> > >
> > > Changes since v3:
> > > - add the assignment of socket_id in thread initialization,
> > >
> > > Changes since v2:
> > > - add uncommitted local change and fix compilation,
> > >
> > > Changes since v1:
> > > - accomodate for configurations with main lcore running on multiples
> > > physical cores belonging to different numa,
> > > ---
> > > lib/eal/common/eal_common_thread.c | 1 +
> > > lib/eal/common/malloc_heap.c | 4 ++++
> > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_thread.c
> > > b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_thread.c
> > > index 38d83a6885..21bff971f8 100644
> > > --- a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_thread.c
> > > +++ b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_thread.c
> > > @@ -251,6 +251,7 @@ static void *ctrl_thread_init(void *arg)
> > > void *routine_arg = params->arg;
> > >
> > > __rte_thread_init(rte_lcore_id(), cpuset);
> > > + RTE_PER_LCORE(_socket_id) = SOCKET_ID_ANY;
> > > params->ret = rte_thread_set_affinity_by_id(rte_thread_self(),
> > cpuset);
> > > if (params->ret != 0) {
> > > __atomic_store_n(¶ms->ctrl_thread_status,
> > > diff --git a/lib/eal/common/malloc_heap.c
> > > b/lib/eal/common/malloc_heap.c index d7c410b786..3ee19aee15 100644
> > > --- a/lib/eal/common/malloc_heap.c
> > > +++ b/lib/eal/common/malloc_heap.c
> > > @@ -717,6 +717,10 @@ malloc_get_numa_socket(void)
> > > return socket_id;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + socket_id = rte_lcore_to_socket_id(rte_get_main_lcore());
> > > + if (socket_id != (unsigned int)SOCKET_ID_ANY)
> > > + return socket_id;
> > > +
> > > return rte_socket_id_by_idx(0);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > I may be lacking context, but I don't quite get the suggested change.
> > From what I understand, the original has to do with assigning lcore cpusets in
> > such a way that an lcore ends up having two socket ID's (because it's been
> > assigned to CPU's on different sockets). Why is this allowed in the first place?
> > It seems like a user error to me, as it breaks many of the fundamental
> > assumptions DPDK makes.
> >
> In a dual socket system, if all used cores are in socket 1 and the NIC is in socket 1,
> no memory is allocated for socket 0. This is to optimize memory consumption.
>
> I agree with you. If the startup parameters can ensure that both sockets
> allocate memory, there will be no problem.
> However, due to the different CPU topologies of different systems,
> It is difficult for users to ensure that the startup parameter contains two cpu nodes.
>
> > I'm fine with using main lcore socket for control threads, I just don't think the
> > `socket_id != SOCKET_ID_ANY` thing should be checked here, because it
> > apparently tries to compensate for a problem with cpuset of the main thread,
> > which shouldn't have happened to begin with.
> >
> This issue has been explained in detail in the discussion of the patch v1 version.
> I will forward the previous email to you. The content of the email will also better
> let you know the purpose of submitting this patch.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-03 14:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20221221104858.296530-1-david.marchand@redhat.com>
2023-01-31 15:05 ` [PATCH v4] net/iavf:enhance " Kaisen You
2023-01-31 16:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-01 5:32 ` You, KaisenX
2023-02-01 12:20 ` [PATCH v5] enhance " Kaisen You
2023-02-15 14:22 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-02-15 14:47 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-02-16 2:50 ` You, KaisenX
2023-03-03 14:07 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2023-03-09 1:58 ` You, KaisenX
2023-04-13 0:56 ` You, KaisenX
2023-04-19 12:16 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-04-21 2:34 ` You, KaisenX
2023-04-21 8:12 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-04-23 6:52 ` You, KaisenX
2023-04-23 8:57 ` You, KaisenX
2023-04-23 13:19 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-04-25 5:16 ` [PATCH v6] " Kaisen You
2023-04-27 6:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-05-16 5:19 ` You, KaisenX
2023-05-23 2:50 ` [PATCH v7] " Kaisen You
2023-05-23 10:44 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-05-26 6:44 ` You, KaisenX
2023-05-23 12:45 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-05-26 6:50 ` [PATCH v8] " Kaisen You
2023-05-26 8:45 ` Kaisen You
2023-05-26 14:44 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-05-26 17:50 ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-05-29 10:37 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-06-01 14:42 ` David Marchand
2023-06-06 14:04 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-06-12 9:36 ` Burakov, Anatoly
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4598779.O6GEm4j1yj@thomas \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=kaisenx.you@intel.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=yidingx.zhou@intel.com \
--cc=zhoumin@loongson.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).