From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A942BA1 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:14:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jun 2017 05:14:07 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,314,1493708400"; d="scan'208";a="1179890965" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.28]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 08 Jun 2017 05:14:04 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 08 Jun 2017 13:14:03 +0100 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:14:03 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Ilya Maximets Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand , Sergio Gonzalez Monroy , Thomas Monjalon , Heetae Ahn , Yuanhan Liu , Jianfeng Tan , Neil Horman , Yulong Pei Message-ID: <20170608121403.GA59132@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1496736832-835-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com> <1496756020-4579-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com> <6eb536e9-9071-f08e-e819-a41c6f78cda3@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6eb536e9-9071-f08e-e819-a41c6f78cda3@samsung.com> Organization: Intel Research and =?iso-8859-1?Q?De=ACvel?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?opment?= Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.1 (2017-04-11) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/2] Balanced allocation of hugepages 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: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 12:14:09 -0000 On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 02:21:58PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I just want to clarify current status of these patches. > As I understand, moving to the new build system (for example, > meson+ninja as proposed[1] by Bruce) is a very long process. > But we have issues with imbalanced memory allocation now, and > IMHO it's better to fix them in a near future. > > Latest version (v5) of balanced allocation patches adds linbuma > as general unconditional dependency which conflicts with the > current DPDK policies. > > So, there are 2 option: > > 1. Return back config option RTE_LIBRTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES > from the first version of the patch and disable it by default. > > 2. Keep patch as it is now and make everyone install libnuma > for successful build. > > I have no preferences about above options. I'm asking your opinions. > > Bruce, Sergio, Thomas, what do you think? > > [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-June/067428.html > > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > I would be ok with having libnuma as a dependency, so I think I'd prefer option 2 to 1, assuming libnuma is available in all major Linux distros. /Bruce