On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 10:45 AM Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> wrote:
>
> +CC David
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:17:08AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:06:10AM +0200, Houssem Bouhlel wrote:
> > > There can be dev binding issue when no hugepages
> > > are allocated for socket 0.
> > > To avoid this, set device numa node value based on
> > > the first lcore instead of 0.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 831dba47bd36 ("bus/vmbus: add Hyper-V virtual bus support")
> >
> > Sorry, the Fixes line is wrong. This is the correct one:
> > Fixes: 8a04cb612589 ("pci: set default numa node for broken systems")
> >
> > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Houssem Bouhlel <houssem.bouh...@6wind.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/bus/pci/pci_common.c | 4 +++-
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/bus/pci/pci_common.c b/drivers/bus/pci/pci_common.c
> > > index f8fff2c98ebf..c70ab2373c79 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/bus/pci/pci_common.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/bus/pci/pci_common.c
> > > @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ rte_pci_probe_one_driver(struct rte_pci_driver *dr,
> > > struct rte_pci_device *dev)
> > > {
> > > int ret;
> > > + unsigned int socket_id;
> > > bool already_probed;
> > > struct rte_pci_addr *loc;
> > >
> > > @@ -194,7 +195,8 @@ rte_pci_probe_one_driver(struct rte_pci_driver *dr,
> > > if (rte_socket_count() > 1)
> > > RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, "Device %s is not NUMA-aware,
> > > defaulting socket to 0\n",
> > > dev->name);
> >
> > One more comment (sorry, I should have done it before you send the mail):
> > We should move this log below, and use the socket_id instead of 0.
> >
> > > - dev->device.numa_node = 0;
> > > + socket_id = rte_lcore_to_socket_id(rte_get_next_lcore(-1, 0,
> > > 0));
> > > + dev->device.numa_node = socket_id;
>
> After some offline discussions with David, some additional comments:
>
> - a similar change may be needed in other bus drivers
>
> - instead of setting the numa node to an existing socket, it can make
> more sense to keep its value to unknown (-1). This would however be a
> behavior change for pci bus, which returns 0 since 2015 for unknown
> cases. See:
> 81f8d2317df2 ("eal/linux: fix socket value for undetermined numa node")
> 8a04cb612589 ("pci: set default numa node for broken systems")
>
> I'll tend to be in favor of using -1. Any other opinion?
> Should we announce a behavior change in this case?
Good summary.
I copied some more people.
I am for -1 too (as a way to indicate "I don't know what this PCI
device affinity is").
It is dangerous to change now, and I think it is late for 21.11.
--
David Marchand
