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.
