From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5FAB0C2 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 17:57:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 May 2014 08:57:10 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,998,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="428319583" Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.155]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 May 2014 08:57:09 -0700 Received: from irsmsx151.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.59) by IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Tue, 6 May 2014 16:56:40 +0100 Received: from irsmsx101.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.249]) by IRSMSX151.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.59]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 6 May 2014 16:56:40 +0100 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC] eal: change default per socket memory allocation Thread-Index: AQHPaEQocvSgkRqJdk6tcRr67tCfj5szUuXggABIyACAABSdUA== Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 15:56:39 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1398867304-21171-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com> <3138330.LfuR0euKkp@xps13> In-Reply-To: <3138330.LfuR0euKkp@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC] eal: change default per socket memory allocation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 15:57:14 -0000 Hi Thomas, > Having --socket-mem option to explicitly configure NUMA is OK. > Having -m option for simple configuration is OK. Exactly. No explicit requirements - use -m option. Explicit socket requirem= ents - use --socket-mem option. > So I don't understand why we shouldn't do this enhancement. I don't know = if > "overcomplication" is a good argument. I don't see any reasons *for* this change. IMO this patch tries to fix a pr= oblem that doesn't exist (or, rather, a problem that is already solved with= --socket-mem switch). I'm open to persuasion on that one of course, but so= far I don't see any compelling reason to change -m switch to be more like = --socket-mem switch when we already have the --socket-mem switch for cases = when the user cares about where the memory comes from. Best regards, Anatoly Burakov DPDK SW Engineer =20