From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com (mail-ob0-f170.google.com [209.85.214.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46D8684A for ; Mon, 5 May 2014 11:26:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id uy5so2380918obc.29 for ; Mon, 05 May 2014 02:26:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=F2YlPFiMPeOafhRcSjoCrAMMM5WT5SwtcwR6VcoC3e0=; b=E3IGoFPUoJaDeOt9wC/WO9+IWZByhgRLzso2i4VhJBYFGX86B5MSm9ABLo8fH9zxmS XeYm21+pLP0Lka35ALJcbwA2mMfTr9kZM9JiSMP2AXKmX5TQz63TEYjNDHluzhTyBKEz HrLCYfx+QSKC4FhfZ0yIb9QbFxag2xgD4hPOfi3EbpD4Qb+2UH0b3/X6m6NVnyrQMQqJ U+1JpLHnH7Yv1cIdKUqK4f6bv/cfWxcFjZG4SnN605lL3RJkGfrc8atudKX9Jk2rDo5m UUqSIxno29c426ytLxpHpVLHmIWC5jZnV/98xf6ZcrswbKIsI9jTGpulEvdq95LLGeZ4 fOBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk3gXFeSJ6jczgAPhF9Sweq2btAAbkI9EW9cRSOgBBOJUv2mgHsBSq4f3d9M3q34EikjJzc MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.40.201 with SMTP id z9mr29980916obk.45.1399281969952; Mon, 05 May 2014 02:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.79.36 with HTTP; Mon, 5 May 2014 02:26:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1FD9B82B8BF2CF418D9A1000154491D97409DBDD@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1398867304-21171-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com> <1FD9B82B8BF2CF418D9A1000154491D97409DBDD@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:26:09 +0200 Message-ID: From: David Marchand To: "Venkatesan, Venky" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 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: Mon, 05 May 2014 09:26:05 -0000 Hello Venky, Anatoly, On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Venkatesan, Venky < venky.venkatesan@intel.com> wrote: > Agree with Anatoly - I would much rather not change legacy option > behaviour that has existed for a while, especially when --socket-mem is > available to do exactly what is needed. > > -Venky > > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Burakov, Anatoly > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 1:54 AM > To: Burakov, Anatoly; David Marchand; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC] eal: change default per socket memory > allocation > > Sorry for spamming, but now that I think of it, I don't believe this > change makes much sense. If the user wants memory on specific sockets, > there's already --socket-mem option. If the user doesn't care, there's -m > option, which gives the user memory from whatever sockets it is available. > With this change applied, DPDK will fail when run with -m switch under > certain circumstances (e.g. cores from socket 0 present in the coremask but > no memory left on socket 0), which is quite the opposite of a simple "give > me n megs, I don't care where it comes from" option -m is providing. > > Actually, if we don't care where memory is allocated, we can at least try to have the more common setup work properly (i.e. spread memory allocations based on used cores). I can see no usual setup where you want to use cores on a socket while having all memory on another socket but still expect performance to be good. So here is another approach for Didier's patch. We can try to spread memory on numa sockets, if this fails, then we default to previous behavior but leave a trace with a warning log "Could not spread memory on numa sockets". What do you think about this ? I would also take into account Anatoly's comments (multi line comments + ensure we won't try to get more memory than asked by user). -- David Marchand