[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/2] Balanced allocation of hugepages

[Sergio Gonzalez Monroy]

On 21/06/2017 09:14, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
> On 6/20/2017 9:11 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:58:50 +0100
>>> From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com>
>>> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>, Ilya Maximets
>>>  <i.maximets at samsung.com>
>>> CC: dev at dpdk.org, Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>, Bruce 
>>> Richardson
>>>  <bruce.richardson at intel.com>, David Marchand 
>>> <david.marchand at 6wind.com>,
>>>  Heetae Ahn <heetae82.ahn at samsung.com>, Yuanhan Liu 
>>> <yliu at fridaylinux.org>,
>>>  Jianfeng Tan <jianfeng.tan at intel.com>, Neil Horman
>>>  <nhorman at tuxdriver.com>, Yulong Pei <yulong.pei at intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/2] Balanced allocation of hugepages
>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
>>>  Thunderbird/45.1.1
>>>
>>> On 20/06/2017 15:35, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>> 20/06/2017 15:58, Ilya Maximets:
>>>>> On 20.06.2017 16:07, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>> 19/06/2017 13:10, Hemant Agrawal:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 02:21:58PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> So, there are 2 option:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>      1. Return back config option 
>>>>>>>>>>> RTE_LIBRTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES
>>>>>>>>>>>         from the first version of the patch and disable it 
>>>>>>>>>>> by default.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>      2. Keep patch as it is now and make everyone install 
>>>>>>>>>>> libnuma
>>>>>>>>>>>         for successful build.
>>>>>>> +1 for option 1
>>>>>>> It will be a issue and undesired dependency for SoCs, not 
>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>> NUMA architecture.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can be added to the config, who desired to use it by default.
>>>>>> Yes I agree, it cannot be a dependency for architectures which
>>>>>> do not support NUMA.
>>>>>> Please can we rework the patch so that only one node is assumed
>>>>>> if NUMA is disabled for the architecture?
>>>
>>> Ilya, I missed that libnuma is not supported on ARM.
>>
>> It is supported on arm64 and arm64 has NUMA machines(thunderx, 
>> thunderx2) too.
>>
>> [dpdk.org] $ dpkg-query -L libnuma-dev
>> /.
>> /usr
>> /usr/lib
>> /usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu
>> /usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libnuma.a
>> /usr/share
>> /usr/share/man
>> /usr/share/man/man3
>> /usr/share/man/man3/numa.3.gz
>> /usr/share/doc
>> /usr/share/doc/libnuma-dev
>> /usr/share/doc/libnuma-dev/copyright
>> /usr/include
>> /usr/include/numaif.h
>> /usr/include/numa.h
>> /usr/include/numacompat1.h
>> /usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libnuma.so
>>
>
> 1. There are many machines (arm/ppc), which do not support NUMA.
>
> https://wiki.linaro.org/LEG/Engineering/Kernel/NUMA
>

I did find that link too, last modified 4 years ago.
Despite that, I could not find any ARM references in libnuma sources, 
but Jerin proved that there is support for it.

http://oss.sgi.com/projects/libnuma/
https://github.com/numactl/numactl

> 2. I could not locate it by default in Linaro toolchains.
>
> 3.  Since this is not a common across all platform. This option should 
> not be added to the common_base or common configs. It can be added to 
> any architecture configuration, which needs it.
>

So is it thunderx the only arm64 to enable this feature by default?
I thought the dependency was the libnuma library support itself.

Thanks,
Sergio

> Regards,
> Hemant
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> We're still don't have dynamic build time configuration system.
>>>>> To make get/set_mempolicy work we need to include <numaif.h>
>>>>> and have libnuma for successful linkage.
>>>>> This means that the only option to not have libnuma as dependency
>>>>> is to return back configuration option 
>>>>> RTE_LIBRTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES
>>>>> as it was in the first version of the patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is, actually, the third option (besides 2 already described):
>>>>>
>>>>>     3. Return back config option RTE_LIBRTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES
>>>>>        from the first version of the patch and *enable* it by 
>>>>> default.
>>>>>        In this case anyone who doesn't want to have libnuma as 
>>>>> dependency
>>>>>        will be able to disable the config option manually.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas, what do you think? Bruce? Sergio?
>>>> It should be enabled on x86 and ppc, and disabled in other
>>>> default configurations (ARM for now).
>>>
>>> Agree.
>>>
>>>>> P.S. We're always able to implement syscall wrappers by hands 
>>>>> without any
>>>>>       external dependencies, but I don't think it's a good decision.
>>>> I agree to use libnuma instead of re-inventing the wheel.
>>>> Let's just make it optional at build time and fallback on one node
>>>> if disabled.
>>>
>>> That is the simple way out.
>>>
>>> Sergio
>>
>
>