On 16-Jan-18 5:34 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
16/01/2018 16:05, Burakov, Anatoly:
On 16-Jan-18 12:20 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
16/01/2018 12:56, Burakov, Anatoly:
On 12-Jan-18 11:50 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
12/01/2018 12:44, Burakov, Anatoly:
On 11-Jan-18 10:20 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
22/12/2017 13:41, Anatoly Burakov:
During lcore scan, find maximum socket ID and store it.
Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
---
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h
@@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ enum rte_proc_type_t {
struct rte_config {
uint32_t master_lcore; /**< Id of the master lcore */
uint32_t lcore_count; /**< Number of available logical cores. */
+ uint32_t numa_node_count; /**< Number of detected NUMA nodes. */
uint32_t service_lcore_count;/**< Number of available service cores. */
enum rte_lcore_role_t lcore_role[RTE_MAX_LCORE]; /**< State of cores. */
isn't it breaking the ABI?
Yep, you're right, forgot to add that. I didn't expect this to get
merged in 18.02 anyway, so v2 will follow.
Please write 18.05 in the subject to show your expectation.
Thanks
Does it have to be an ABI change though? We can put numa_node_count
after pointer to mem_config, in which case it won't be an ABI break.
Would that be better?
Changing the size of a struct which is allocated by the app,
is an ABI break.
Is your solution changing the size?
It's not really allocated as such. rte_config is a global static
variable, and we only ever get pointers to it from the user code. If we
add the new value at the end, all of the old data layout would be intact
and work as before, so nothing would change as far as old code is concerned.
However, if that's still considered an ABI break, then OK, break it is.
Maybe that assuming it is never allocated (not copied for instance)
we could consider it is not an ABI break.
Some background for why this is needed - for the memory hotplug, we need
to know how many sockets we can allocate memory at, to distinguish
between socket that doesn't exist, and socket that exists but has no
memory allocated on it. I'm OK with trying other approaches (such as
storing numa nodes in a static variable somewhere) if breaking ABI for
this is too much to ask for such a minute change.
Why is it important for 18.02?
Memory hotplug will be integrated only in 18.05.
I think it is better to just wait (and announce the deprecation).
It isn't, i've already marked this patch as deferred. However, we'll
have to have this discussion anyway :)
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
