From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC94A0A0F; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 11:28:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2025240040; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 11:28:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1029F4003F for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 11:28:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C935C0085; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 05:28:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 04 Jul 2021 05:28:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= 5D2S2VvOuzKBGJxDFfLpqTF1ZiST8nEOWnresqY/mqA=; b=rCzyKFMW02+tRr6E NwPLP8FpC+7oGhEPmCaSYsUnwibzn4aCipOQ6Iic+gMK1wkxScYfz6D9mj3cQdjG 933ScYJ8u1BH1ZKr3UK83zf9dAimzOWvMNBIvkVVuPXqaNTt6sBRGzPXOfR0P/kk 051MDOaTiQhwVBPEJdGVrP/uxFEtoSEQWmndprFoh0jWBtLWEgR+n0UmmtMOTi9i DlTOb7MlBJSWC0Lw6kXCumf39LtOrprMjegbpXPMC6ERQB3Eewt2PxABxAzB9jmu SxLXeXOZEr+WHv3mk18W4Qr6KwtrGfWRxRgpbcZYPD/Gen1I9kScbSabkfpeUHb2 zYtKrw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=5D2S2VvOuzKBGJxDFfLpqTF1ZiST8nEOWnresqY/m qA=; b=mOi6ZMVG98npWWiSBjDyshTv1ZrYv1QGp9wSrKf4kWhYBOLdu5c4+EjbZ E2aDZiCI+ya6i9A7+0Eaa98qeewdilwDB2DBz05p5GHE67XvMclKREkd/U6Oml+n 2NlWiMRkjPvmTfcVSU55M0S9T8ALRqtBBIgC0TtgTJTckUioFvTCNuvAdxAEXIo+ lXQq5pExJUL6NplJ6JPRwQSitPxGSl9HTuoO84jzC4yIgauKGN0Mm3Ok+48e6zsH 2LyHQB2IsmtOZRfZXcT1ewuXGNvIGRdOqGWRjomGt8leVzftdV04hkGSTF3bKJB8 6wQNU1j0qxtYbzBywim8DLNs1/pyw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfeejvddgudeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 05:28:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: dev@dpdk.org, Andrew Rybchenko Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com, keesang.song@amd.com, anatoly.burakov@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, David Christensen , dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com, ruifeng.wang@arm.com Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 11:28:23 +0200 Message-ID: <2008897.KIaY0792Ae@thomas> In-Reply-To: <9e359fe9-f993-ef6c-1b51-1e08fec5ff9b@oktetlabs.ru> References: <2863796.yO5TXMfXnl@thomas> <12700395.j6fn4b5UDm@thomas> <9e359fe9-f993-ef6c-1b51-1e08fec5ff9b@oktetlabs.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] NUMA node/socket X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 04/07/2021 10:27, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 7/4/21 4:53 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 04/07/2021 03:38, Thomas Monjalon: > >> There are some mix between NUMA node and socket IDs in DPDK. > >> Examples: > >> * rte_eth_dev_socket_id() returns the NUMA node. > >> * rte_malloc use sockets to allocate the memory > >> > >> Is it critical? > > > > There is a function, implemented for Windows only, > > which distinguishes clearly node and socket > > but it assumes there is only 1 node per socket: > > > > unsigned int > > eal_socket_numa_node(unsigned int socket_id) > > { > > return cpu_map.sockets[socket_id].node_id; > > } > > > > Reminder: AMD can be configured to have multiple nodes per socket. > > Taking the reminder into account the topic definitely > requires improvements. > > I apologize for my ignorance, but > Is socket ID really interesting to anybody in DPDK? I think the socket ID might be interesting for the threads, but not for memory or devices. > If no, we should just clarify terminology and switch > to NUMA node everywhere. I have the same opinion as Andrew. If socket ID is required, it could be deduced from the NUMA node or from the CPU core.