On Wednesday 21 March 2018 03:54 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
+ config->numa_node_count = max_socket_id + 1;
In some IBM servers, socket ID number does not seem to be in
sequence. For an instance, 0 and 8 for a 2 node server.
In this case, numa_node_count would mislead users if wrongly
understood by its variable name IMO (see below)
+ RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, "Detected %u NUMA nodes\n",
config->numa_node_count);
For an instance, reading above message would tell 'EAL detected 8
nodes' in my server, but actually there are only two nodes.
Could its name better be 'numa_node_id_max' ?. Also, we store in
actual count of numa nodes in _count variable.
Also, there could be a case when there is no local memory available
to a numa node too.
Thanks,
Gowrishankar
The point of this patchset is to (pre)allocate memory only on existing
sockets.
If we don't know how many sockets there are, we are forced to
preallocate VA space per each *possible* NUMA node - that is, reserve
e.g. 8x128G of memory, 6 of which will go unused on a 2-socket system.
We can't know if there is no memory on socket in advance, but we can
at least avoid preallocating VA space for sockets that don't exist in
the first place.
Sounds good Anatoly.
May be, sysfs/ might help to confirm if a numa node has local memory ?.
Anyway, for the context of this particular patch (return numa nodes),
below approach you mentioned is good.
How about we store all possible socket id's instead? e.g. something like:
static int numa_node_ids[MAX_NUMA_NODES];
<...>
int rte_eal_cpu_init() {
int sockets[RTE_MAX_LCORE];
<...>
for (lcore_id = 0; lcore_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE; lcore_id++) {
core_to_socket[lcore_id] = socket;
sockets[lcore_id] = eal_cpu_socket_id(lcore_id);
}
<...>
qsort(sockets);
<...>
// store all unique sockets in numa_node_ids in ascending order
Just thinking that, is there a purpose of retaining a numa ID which does
not have local memory attached ?
but sockets[] is suppose to reflect all available nodes though (and
assuming, its calling place to ensure
for the existence of numa local memory).
}
<...>
on a 2 socket system we then get:
rte_num_sockets() => return 2
rte_get_socket_id(int idx) => return numa_node_ids[idx]
rte_get_socket_mem(idx) might help to validate for local memory existence ?
Would that be suitable?
Thanks,
Gowrishankar
