We'll be discussing this RFC on Monday's ARCH call.  I'm certainly open to
adding this if it's deemed useful.  I do note that DPDK defines SOCK_ID_ANY
to be -1 so I'd like to minimize translation overhead for odp-dpdk in this
area as well.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.k...@linaro.org>
wrote:

>
>
> On 29/01/16 02:44, Bill Fischofer wrote:
>
>> Add odp_cpu_socket_id() and odp_cpu_socket_id_cpu() routines
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   include/odp/api/cpu.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/odp/api/cpu.h b/include/odp/api/cpu.h
>> index 4cbaf58..fe74825 100644
>> --- a/include/odp/api/cpu.h
>> +++ b/include/odp/api/cpu.h
>> @@ -36,6 +36,29 @@ extern "C" {
>>   int odp_cpu_id(void);
>>
>>   /**
>> + * CPU socket id
>> + *
>> + * Returns the socket id associated with the calling CPU on NUMA systems.
>> + * Socket ID numbering is system specific.
>> + *
>> + * @return Socket ID of the calling CPU
>> + * @retval ODP_SOCKET_ID_ANY  If the caller is not running on a NUMA
>> system.
>> + */
>> +uint32_t odp_cpu_socket_id(void);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * CPU socket id of designated CPU
>> + *
>> + * Returns the socket id associated with a specified CPU on NUMA systems.
>> + * Socket ID numbering is system specific.
>> + *
>> + * @return Socket ID of the designated CPU
>> + * @retval ODP_SOCKET_ID_ANY If the specified CPU is unknown or caller is
>> + * not running on a NUMA system.
>>
>
> Maybe worth to differentiate between the two scenario with different
> return value? To query for an invalid CPU sounds like a serious problem in
> the application while the other is part of normal operation.
>
>
> + */
>> +uint32_t odp_cpu_socket_id_cpu(int cpu_id);
>> +
>> +/**
>>    * CPU count
>>    *
>>    * Report the number of CPU's available to this ODP program.
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp

Reply via email to