On 2016/04/06 16:17, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 03:49:25PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: >> On 2016/04/06 1:09, Ciara Loftus wrote: >>> After some testing, it was found that retrieving numa information >>> about a vhost device via a call to get_mempolicy is more >>> accurate when performed during the new_device callback versus >>> the vring_state_changed callback, in particular upon initial boot >>> of the VM. Performing this check during new_device is also >>> potentially more efficient as this callback is only triggered once >>> during device initialisation, compared with vring_state_changed >>> which may be called multiple times depending on the number of >>> queues assigned to the device. >>> >>> Reorganise the code to perform this check and assign the correct >>> socket_id to the device during the new_device callback. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ciara Loftus <ciara.loftus at intel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/net/vhost/rte_eth_vhost.c | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- >>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/vhost/rte_eth_vhost.c >>> b/drivers/net/vhost/rte_eth_vhost.c >>> index 4cc6bec..b1eb082 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/vhost/rte_eth_vhost.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/vhost/rte_eth_vhost.c >>> >> Hi, >> >> I appreciate fixing it. >> Just one worry is that state changed event may be occurred before new >> device event. >> The users should not call rte_eth_dev_socket_id() until new device event >> comes, even if they catch queue state events. >> Otherwise, they will get wrong socket id to call >> rte_eth_rx/tx_queue_setup(). > There is no way to guarantee that the socket id stuff would work > perfectly in vhost, right? I mean, it's likely that virtio device > would allocate memory from 2 or more sockets. > > So, it doesn't matter too much whether it's set perfectly right > or not. Instead, we should assign it with a saner value instead > of a obvious wrong one when new_device() is not invoked yet. So, > I'd suggest to make an assignment first based on vhost_dev (or > whatever) struct, and then make it "right" at new_device() > callback?
Yes, I agree with you idea. Thanks, Tetsuya >> So how about commenting it in 'rte_eth_vhost.h'? > It asks a different usage than other PMDs, which I don't think > it's a good idea. > > --yliu
