[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54355F62.5050406@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 11:59:30 -0400
From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
John Griffin <john.griffin@...el.com>, qat-linux@...el.com,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto, qat, use generic numa functions
On 10/08/2014 11:50 AM, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> Hi Prarit,
> On 10/07/2014 05:12 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>> The method in which the qat code determines the numa node for memory
>> allocations is a bit clunky. On 2 socket, single node systems it is
>> possible that adf_get_dev_node_id() returns node 1, even though node 1
>> doesn't exist.
>>
>> This code transitions the qat code to the generic numa functions.
>> Changing adf_get_dev_node_id() to a simple call to dev_get_node() results
>> in a change to the adf_accel_dev struct as well.
>
> The problem with that is we don't want to use any valid numa node, but
> the node we are connected to or we don't want to use the accelerator at
> all. Otherwise, when the first valid numa node happens to be the remote
> node the dma transactions we be slow and instead of accelerating we will
> slow things down.
> A patch that enforces this is on it's way.
Yeah, I was actually wondering if
dev_get_node() returns NO_NODE, then we should just default to 0?
I'll wait for your patch ...
P.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists