On 14/9/2021 12:29 PM, David Marchand wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 1:07 PM David Hunt <david.h...@intel.com> wrote:
“ERROR: logical core 212 is above the maximum lcore number permitted.
Please use the --lcores option to map lcores onto physical cores, e.g.
--lcores="(0-3)@(212-215).”
If you could directly provide the right --lcores syntax based on what
user provided with -c or -l, it would be even better.
This should be not that difficult.
Agreed. I now have something working that when given "-l 12-16,130,132",
will output the following:
EAL: One of the 7 cores provided exceeds RTE_MAX_LCORE (128)
EAL: Please use --lcores instead, e.g. --lcores "(0-6)@(12-16,130,132)"
That's not equivalent.
(0-6)@(12-16,130,132) means 7 lcores with each lcore running on the
same group of physical cores.
-l 12-16,130,132 means 7 lcores running on dedicated physical cores.
I would expect 0@12,1@13,2@14,3@15,4@16,5@130,6@132
You can see with debug logs:
$ echo quit | ./build/app/dpdk-testpmd --log-level=*:debug --no-huge
-m 512 --lcores '(0-2)@(0-2)' -- --total-num-mbufs 2048 |& grep
lcore.*is.ready
EAL: Main lcore 0 is ready (tid=7feb9550bc00;cpuset=[0,1,2])
EAL: lcore 1 is ready (tid=7feb909ce700;cpuset=[0,1,2])
EAL: lcore 2 is ready (tid=7feb901cd700;cpuset=[0,1,2])
vs
$ echo quit | ./build/app/dpdk-testpmd --log-level=*:debug --no-huge
-m 512 --lcores 0@0,1@1,2@2 -- --total-num-mbufs 2048 |& grep
lcore.*is.ready
EAL: Main lcore 0 is ready (tid=7fba1cd1ac00;cpuset=[0])
EAL: lcore 2 is ready (tid=7fba179dc700;cpuset=[2])
EAL: lcore 1 is ready (tid=7fba181dd700;cpuset=[1])
Hi David,
Thanks for the clarification. I've made the relevant changes and
submitted a v2. Hopefully the suggested parameters are correct this time! :)
Regards,
Dave.
