21/06/2017 13:22, Jerin Jacob: > From: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com> > > On 21.06.2017 13:29, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > >> 21/06/2017 11:27, Jerin Jacob: > > >>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > >>>> 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.
In this case, you can enable it in common_base and disable it only for armv7 and dpaa2.
