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-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
