On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:43:03AM +0000, Liang, Cunming wrote: > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 1:57 AM > > To: Liang, Cunming > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 12/19] malloc: fix the issue of > > SOCKET_ID_ANY > > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:38:14AM +0800, Cunming Liang wrote: > > > Add check for rte_socket_id(), avoid get unexpected return like (-1). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang <cunming.liang at intel.com> > > > --- > > > lib/librte_malloc/malloc_heap.h | 7 ++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_malloc/malloc_heap.h > > > b/lib/librte_malloc/malloc_heap.h > > > index b4aec45..a47136d 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_malloc/malloc_heap.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_malloc/malloc_heap.h > > > @@ -44,7 +44,12 @@ extern "C" { > > > static inline unsigned > > > malloc_get_numa_socket(void) > > > { > > > - return rte_socket_id(); > > > + unsigned socket_id = rte_socket_id(); > > > + > > > + if (socket_id == (unsigned)SOCKET_ID_ANY) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > + return socket_id; > > Why is -1 unexpected? Isn't it reasonable to assume that some memory is > > equidistant from all cpu numa nodes? > [LCM] One piece of memory will be whole allocated from one specific NUMA > node. But won't be like some part from one and the other part from another. > If no specific NUMA node assigned(SOCKET_ID_ANY/-1), it firstly asks for the > current NUMA node where current core belongs to. > 'malloc_get_numa_socket()' is called on that time. When the time 1:1 > thread/core mapping is assumed and the default value is 0, it always will > return a none (-1) value. > Now rte_socket_id() may return -1 in the case the pthread runs on multi-cores > which are not belongs to one NUMA node, or in the case _socket_id is not yet > assigned and the default value is (-1). So if current _socket_id is -1, then > just pick up the first node as the candidate. Probably I shall add more > comments for this. > > Ok, but doesn't that provide an abnormal bias for node 0? I was thinking it might be better to be honest with the application so that it can choose a node according to its own policy.
Neil > > Neil > > > > > } > > > > > > void * > > > -- > > > 1.8.1.4 > > > > > > >
