From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Balanced allocation of hugepages
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:07:11 +0200
Message-ID: <2889333.ySLvsRWIRF@xps>
References: <1496736832-835-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com>
 <eb89ab96-3320-175c-f9a3-e7b340f09b0e@samsung.com>
 <3ccc716f-27ae-55a4-0751-c60b5329d7a4@nxp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
 Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>,
 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>,
 Heetae Ahn <heetae82.ahn@samsung.com>, Yuanhan Liu <yliu@fridaylinux.org>,
 Jianfeng Tan <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>, Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
 Yulong Pei <yulong.pei@intel.com>
To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C0B2C8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:07:12 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <3ccc716f-27ae-55a4-0751-c60b5329d7a4@nxp.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

19/06/2017 13:10, Hemant Agrawal:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 02:21:58PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> >>>> So, there are 2 option:
> >>>>
> >>>>     1. Return back config option RTE_LIBRTE_EAL_NUMA_AWARE_HUGEPAGES
> >>>>        from the first version of the patch and disable it by default.
> >>>>
> >>>>     2. Keep patch as it is now and make everyone install libnuma
> >>>>        for successful build.
> >
> +1 for option 1
> It will be a issue and undesired dependency for SoCs, not supporting 
> NUMA architecture.
> 
> It can be added to the config, who desired to use it by default.

Yes I agree, it cannot be a dependency for architectures which
do not support NUMA.
Please can we rework the patch so that only one node is assumed
if NUMA is disabled for the architecture?