[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] build: optional NUMA and cpu counts detection

Bruce Richardson bruce.richardson at intel.com
Tue Aug 31 10:02:50 CEST 2021


On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 07:54:16AM +0000, Juraj Linkeš wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj at anongoth.pl>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 2:55 AM
> > To: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.linkes at pantheon.tech>
> > Cc: David Christensen <drc at linux.vnet.ibm.com>; thomas at monjalon.net;
> > david.marchand at redhat.com; bruce.richardson at intel.com;
> > Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com; Ruifeng.Wang at arm.com;
> > ferruh.yigit at intel.com; jerinjacobk at gmail.com; jerinj at marvell.com;
> > stephen at networkplumber.org; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] build: optional NUMA and cpu counts detection
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > sorry for the late answer.
> 
> Thanks for the answer anyway, better late than never.
> 
> > 
> > I suppose you mean sysctl command, not systemctl.
> > 
> 
> That's right. What does lscpu say? Are the NUMA nodes non-contiguous like this?:
> NUMA node0 CPU(s):   0-63
> NUMA node8 CPU(s):   64-127
> NUMA node252 CPU(s):
> NUMA node253 CPU(s):
> NUMA node254 CPU(s):
> NUMA node255 CPU(s):
> 
> > On dual CPU systems, it returns 2. On single CPU ones, 1.
> 
> I asked the previous question so that we know the actual numa node number of the second CPU. If it's 8, then sysctl does some renumeration and we can't use it.
> 
> Bruce, maybe we should just parse lscpu output? That introduces a dependency, but that may not be such a big deal as lscpu is pretty common.
> 
Until we are sure that we need it, can we just keep things simple? Perhaps
we can use lscpu if present, and fallback to sysctl output if not.


More information about the dev mailing list