在 2021/4/27 19:51, Iremonger, Bernard 写道:
Hi Min,
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 10:41 AM
To: Min Hu (Connor) <humi...@huawei.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Iremonger,
Bernard <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>; Kantecki, Tomasz
<tomasz.kante...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
<bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Burakov, Anatoly
<anatoly.bura...@intel.com>; david.march...@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] examples/flow_classify: fix check of
port and core
20/04/2021 04:26, Min Hu (Connor):
2021/4/20 9:08, Thomas Monjalon:
27/03/2021 08:40, Min Hu (Connor):
fix check of port and core in flow_classify example.
Fixes: bab16ddaf2c1 ("examples/flow_classify: add sample
application")
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humi...@huawei.com>
---
RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(port)
- if (rte_eth_dev_socket_id(port) > 0 &&
+ if (rte_eth_dev_socket_id(port) >= 0 &&
This fix works (I have tested it on my system)
However a cleaner fix would be to drop the above line and add the if on the
next line instead (also tested on my system).
Hi, 'rte_eth_dev_socket_id(port)' may return -1, we should avoid this
situation.
If (rte_eth_dev_socket_id(port) != (int)rte_socket_id())
rte_eth_dev_socket_id(port) != (int)rte_socket_id())
{
printf("\n\n");
printf("WARNING: port %u is on remote NUMA
node\n",
Please explain which case is broken and why.
If I understand well, we don't detect remote NUMA if not running on first
socket.
Hi, the code is this:
**********************************************************
***************
/*
* Check that the port is on the same NUMA node as the polling
thread
* for best performance.
*/
RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(port)
if (rte_eth_dev_socket_id(port) > 0 &&
rte_eth_dev_socket_id(port) != (int)rte_socket_id())
{
printf("\n\n");
printf("WARNING: port %u is on remote NUMA
node\n",
port);
printf("to polling thread.\n");
printf("Performance will not be optimal.\n");
}
printf("\nCore %u forwarding packets. ", rte_lcore_id());
printf("[Ctrl+C to quit]\n");
**********************************************************
************
***
According to the comments and logging, the author just hope user to
use the core and device which are in the same numa node for optimal
performance. If not, A warning gives out.
For example in flow_classify:
./build/flow_classify -w 0000:7d:00.1 -l 93
Here:
0000:7d:00.1 is on numa node 0.
core 93 is on numa node 3.
the two are not in same numa node, but no warning gives out in old codes.
Well, using this patch, we can get the waring.
You need to explain which case was broken in the commit log.
Thanks
Regards,
Bernard.
.
