From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: [PATCH 18.05 v4] eal: add function to return number of detected sockets Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 16:32:40 +0000 Message-ID: <20180309163240.GA13824@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <750e30c6dcc7a22a87df9c56fb824042b1db984f.1517848624.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com> <20180308121229.GA8660@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Return-path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17AE65F4D for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:32:46 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:38:37PM +0000, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 08-Mar-18 12:12 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:58:36AM +0000, Anatoly Burakov wrote: > > > During lcore scan, find maximum socket ID and store it. This will > > > break the ABI, so bump ABI version. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov > > > --- > > > > > > Notes: > > > v4: > > > - Remove backwards ABI compatibility, bump ABI instead > > > v3: > > > - Added ABI compatibility > > > v2: > > > - checkpatch changes > > > - check socket before deciding if the core is not to be used > > > > > > lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/Makefile | 2 +- > > > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_lcore.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h | 1 + > > > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_lcore.h | 8 +++++++ > > > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 2 +- > > > lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map | 9 +++++++- > > > 6 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > Breaking the ABI is the best way to implement this change, and given the > > deprecation was previously announced I'm ok with that. > > > > Question: we are ok assuming that the socket numbers are sequential, or > > nearly so, and knowing the maximum socket number seen is a good > > approximation of the actual physical sockets? I know in terms of cores > > on a system, the core id's often jump - are there systems where the > > socket numbers do too? > > > > /Bruce > > > > I am not aware of any system that would jump sockets like that. I'm open to > corrections, however :) > > -- In the absense of any corrections, I think this is fine to have. Acked-by: Bruce Richardson