[RFC] Fix cryptodev socket id for devices on unknown NUMA node

[Morten Brørup]

> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson at intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2023 14.04
> 
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 12:32:14PM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > From: Didier Pallard [mailto:didier.pallard at 6wind.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2023 11.17
> > >
> > > Since DPDK 22.11 and below commit:
> > >
> https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=7dcd73e37965ba0bfa430efeac362fe183
> > > ed0ae2
> > > rte_cryptodev_socket_id() could return an incorrect value of 255.
> > > Problem has been seen during configuration of the qat device
> > > on an Atom C3000 architecture. On this arch, PCI is not depending
> on
> > > any numa socket, causing device numa_node to be equal to
> SOCKET_ID_ANY.
> >
> > Disclaimer: I'm not up to speed with this topic or patch, so feel
> free to ignore my comments here! I'm only speaking up because I fear we
> are increasing the risk of bugs here. But again, please bear with me,
> if I have totally misunderstood this!
> >
> > I was under the impression that single-socket systems used socket_id
> 0 as default. How can the PCI bus (or QAT device) not depend on any
> socket? It must be connected somewhere.
> >
> > Doesn't assigning socket_id = -1 for devices (QAT or anything else)
> introduce a big risk of bugs, e.g. in comparisons? The special
> socket_id value -1 should have only two meanings: 1) return value
> "error", or 2) input value "any". Now it also can mean 3) "unknown"?
> How do comparison functions work for that... is "any" == "unknown"? And
> does searching for "0" match "unknown"? It might, or might not, but
> searching for "any" does match "0". And how about searching for
> "unknown", if such a value is propagate around in the system.
> >
> > And if we started considering socket_id == -1 valid with that patch,
> should the return type of rte_socket_id(void) be signed instead of
> unsigned?
> >
> The issue here is that not all PCI endpoints connect directly to a
> socket,
> some connect to the chipset instead, and so do not have any numa
> affinity.
> That was the original meaning of the "-1" value, and it came about from
> an
> era before we had on-die PCI endpoints.

Thank you for elaborating, Bruce. Now I get it!

Then it does make sense instantiating devices with socket_id = -1.

A minor detail: SOCKET_ID_ANY is defined in lib/eal/include/rte_memory.h [1]. Since it is being used for other purposes than memory allocation, it could move to a more central location. No good ideas from me, but perhaps memory and devices have an appropriate header file in common.

[1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/latest/source/lib/eal/include/rte_memory.h#L38

And the multiple purposes of SOCKET_ID_ANY (e.g. what you just described) could be mentioned as a comment with its definition.

And I'm still worried about the risk of comparison bugs, e.g. when requesting allocation of a device resource, you cannot specify a preference for a device that is connected to the chipset, because the SOCKET_ID_ANY in the allocation request would be interpreted as "any socket" instead of "no socket".

Although that might just be me worrying too much. ;-)

-Morten