From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Balanced allocation of hugepages
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:10 +0530
Message-ID: <3ccc716f-27ae-55a4-0751-c60b5329d7a4@nxp.com>
References: <1496736832-835-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com>
 <CGME20170606133348eucas1p1cc5c3c05f88b2101c2ea47b26e0cac24@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
 <1496756020-4579-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com>
 <6eb536e9-9071-f08e-e819-a41c6f78cda3@samsung.com>
 <20170608121403.GA59132@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <0d7f6aa1-8026-a051-9f8c-d80b8136a7a9@intel.com>
 <eb89ab96-3320-175c-f9a3-e7b340f09b0e@samsung.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>, Thomas Monjalon
 <thomas@monjalon.net>, 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>, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
 <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>, Bruce Richardson
 <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-by2nam01on0056.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.56])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959DB374
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:10:23 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <eb89ab96-3320-175c-f9a3-e7b340f09b0e@samsung.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>

On 6/14/2017 11:41 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> On 08.06.2017 18:44, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
>> On 08/06/2017 13:14, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 02:21:58PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I just want to clarify current status of these patches.
>>>> As I understand, moving to the new build system (for example,
>>>> meson+ninja as proposed[1] by Bruce) is a very long process.
>>>> But we have issues with imbalanced memory allocation now, and
>>>> IMHO it's better to fix them in a near future.
>>>>
>>>> Latest version (v5) of balanced allocation patches adds linbuma
>>>> as general unconditional dependency which conflicts with the
>>>> current DPDK policies.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I have no preferences about above options. I'm asking your opinions.
>>>>
>>>> Bruce, Sergio, Thomas, what do you think?
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-June/067428.html
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
>>>>
>>> I would be ok with having libnuma as a dependency, so I think I'd prefer
>>> option 2 to 1, assuming libnuma is available in all major Linux distros.
>>>
>>> /Bruce
>>
>> +1 on option 2 (current patch and libnuma as DPDK dependency).
>>
>> Sergio
>>
>
> Ok. In this case I'm waiting for review.
>
> And someone need to install libnuma development package in automatic
> build test environment. Otherwise there will be constant compilation
> test failures like this:
> 	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/test-report/2017-June/021437.html
>
> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
>
+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.