-----Original Message----- > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:36:58 +0300 > From: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com> > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, Thomas Monjalon > <tho...@monjalon.net> > CC: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.mon...@intel.com>, Hemant > Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>, dev@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>, David Marchand <david.march...@6wind.com>, > Heetae Ahn <heetae82....@samsung.com>, Yuanhan Liu <y...@fridaylinux.org>, > Jianfeng Tan <jianfeng....@intel.com>, Neil Horman > <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>, Yulong Pei <yulong....@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Balanced allocation of hugepages > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 > Thunderbird/45.8.0 > > On 21.06.2017 13:29, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > >> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:58:12 +0200 > >> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > >> Cc: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.mon...@intel.com>, Hemant > >> Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>, Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com>, > >> dev@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>, David > >> Marchand <david.march...@6wind.com>, Heetae Ahn > >> <heetae82....@samsung.com>, Yuanhan Liu <y...@fridaylinux.org>, Jianfeng > >> Tan <jianfeng....@intel.com>, Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>, Yulong > >> Pei <yulong....@intel.com> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Balanced allocation of hugepages > >> > >> 21/06/2017 11:27, Jerin Jacob: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:49:14 +0200 > >>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>>> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > >>>> Cc: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.mon...@intel.com>, Hemant > >>>> Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>, Ilya Maximets > >>>> <i.maxim...@samsung.com>, > >>>> dev@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>, David > >>>> Marchand <david.march...@6wind.com>, Heetae Ahn > >>>> <heetae82....@samsung.com>, Yuanhan Liu <y...@fridaylinux.org>, Jianfeng > >>>> Tan <jianfeng....@intel.com>, Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>, > >>>> Yulong > >>>> Pei <yulong....@intel.com> > >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Balanced allocation of hugepages > >>>> > >>>> 21/06/2017 10:41, Jerin Jacob: > >>>>>>> 1. There are many machines (arm/ppc), which do not support NUMA. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://wiki.linaro.org/LEG/Engineering/Kernel/NUMA > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I did find that link too, last modified 4 years ago. > >>>>>> Despite that, I could not find any ARM references in libnuma sources, > >>>>>> but > >>>>>> Jerin proved that there is support for it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://oss.sgi.com/projects/libnuma/ > >>>>>> https://github.com/numactl/numactl > >>>>> > >>>>> Those Linaro links are very old. ARM64 NUMA supported has been added in > >>>>> 4.7 kernel. > >>>>> I guess we are talking about build time time dependency with libnuma > >>>>> here. > >>>>> Correct? I think, Even with old arm64 kernel(< 4.6), You can build > >>>>> against > >>>>> libnuma if it is present in rootfs. Just that at runtime, it will return > >>>>> NUMA support not available. Correct? > >>>>> > >>>>> How hard is detect the presence of "numaif.h" if existing build system > >>>>> does not > >>>>> support it? If it trivial, we can enable > >>>>> RTE_LIBRTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES > >>>>> if build environment has "numaif.h". > >>>>> > >>>>> Some example in linux kernel build system: > >>>>> http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v4.10.1/scripts/gcc-goto.sh > >>>> > >>>> I think we should not try to detect numaif.h, because it should be > >>>> an error on platform supporting NUMA. > >>> > >>> I have installed libnuma on a NUMA and non NUMA machine. > >>> Compiled and ran following code on those machine and it could detect > >>> the numa availability. Could you add more details on the "error on > >>> platform supporting NUMA". > >> > >> I was saying that we do not need to detect NUMA. > >> If we are building DPDK for a NUMA architecture and libnuma is not > >> available, then it will be a problem that the user must catch. > >> The easiest way to catch it, is to fail on the include of numaif.h. > > > > libnuma is not really _architecture_ depended. > > > > Ilya Maximets patch disables NUMA support in common arm64 config.I > > think, It is not correct, We should not disable on any archs generic config. > > > > IMO, It should be enabled by default in common config and then we can > > detect the presence of numaif.h, if not available OR a target does not need > > it > > explicitly, proceed with disabling > > RTE_LIBRTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES. I think, That is more portable. > > Detecting of headers is impossible until dpdk doesn't have dynamic build > configuration system like autotools, CMake or meson. > Right now we just can't do that.
I agree. Unless if we do something like linux kernel does it below http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/scripts/kconfig/lxdialog/check-lxdialog.sh Either way, I think, you can enable RTE_LIBRTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES in generic arm64 config and disable on defconfig_arm64-dpaa2-linuxapp-gcc(as Hemant requested) or any sub arch target that does not need in RTE_LIBRTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES. > > > No strong opinion on "failing the build" vs "printing a warning" in the > > absence of numaif.h
