[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix parsing of argument of option --lcores
Hi Bynes
Thanks for your feedback.
> -Original Message-
> From: bynes adam [mailto:adambynes at outlook.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 4:45 AM
> To: Dai, Wei
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix parsing of argument of option
> --lcores
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:03:38PM +0800, Wei Dai wrote:
> Hi Wei,
> > The '-' in lcores set overrides cpu set of following lcore set in the
> > argument of EAL option --lcores.
> >
> > Fixes: 53e54bf81700 ("eal: new option --lcores for cpu assignment")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Dai
> > ---
> > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 12
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > index 0a594d7..96eb1a9 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > @@ -563,6 +563,7 @@ convert_to_cpuset(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp,
> > * lcores, cpus could be a single digit/range or a group.
> > * '(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
> > * If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
> > + * The 'a-b' in lcores not within '(' and ')' means a,a+1,...,b-1,b .
> this description is not very clear, a-b and (a-b) are both the same meaning.
> may be need a table for comparison
> a-b@(c-d)
> a-b at c-d
> (a-b)@c-d
> (a-b)@(c-d)
> all the above I believe are the same
> only the following two cases:
> a-b,
> (a-b),
With --lcores '0-3 at 12-15', eal_parse_cores( ) will fail because
eal_parse_set( )
find the next char after lcore set is '@' and is not ',' or '\0'.
So the bug in eal_parse_set( ) should be fixed.
A patch v3 will be provided.
After fixing, I test it with --lcores '0-3 at 12-15, 4-7@(8-11), (8-11)@4-7,
(12-15)@(0-3), 16-19, (20-23) '
It works well.
Thanks
Wei
> so the key point here is the @ and (), not only @
> > * e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6),7-8' means start 9 EAL thread as below
> > * lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> > * lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> > @@ -571,6 +572,15 @@ convert_to_cpuset(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp,
> > * lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> > * lcore 7 runs on cpuset 0x80 (cpu 7)
> > * lcore 8 runs on cpuset 0x100 (cpu 8)
> > + * e.g. '0-2,(3-5)@(3,4),6@(5,6),7@(5-7)'means start 8 EAL threads as
> below
> > + * lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x1 (cpu 0)
> > + * lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> > + * lcore 2 runs on cpuset ox4 (cpu 2)
> > + * lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x18 (cpu 3,4)
> > + * lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x60 (cpu 5,6)
> > + * lcore 7 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
> > + * The second case is used to test bugfix for lflags not be cleared
> > + after use
> you can put this sentance and description into the commit log I don't think
> you
> should put bugfix description in comments here.
> > + */
> > */
> > static int
> > eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores)
> > @@ -679,6 +689,8 @@ eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores)
> >sizeof(rte_cpuset_t));
> > }
> >
> > + lflags = 0;
> > +
> > lcores = end + 1;
> > } while (*end != '\0');
> >
> > --
> > 2.5.5
> Adam Bynes
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix parsing of argument of option --lcores
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:03:38PM +0800, Wei Dai wrote:
Hi Wei,
> The '-' in lcores set overrides cpu set of following
> lcore set in the argument of EAL option --lcores.
>
> Fixes: 53e54bf81700 ("eal: new option --lcores for cpu assignment")
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Dai
> ---
> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 12
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> index 0a594d7..96eb1a9 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> @@ -563,6 +563,7 @@ convert_to_cpuset(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp,
> * lcores, cpus could be a single digit/range or a group.
> * '(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
> * If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
> + * The 'a-b' in lcores not within '(' and ')' means a,a+1,...,b-1,b .
this description is not very clear, a-b and (a-b) are both the same meaning.
may be need a table for comparison
a-b@(c-d)
a-b at c-d
(a-b)@c-d
(a-b)@(c-d)
all the above I believe are the same
only the following two cases:
a-b,
(a-b),
so the key point here is the @ and (), not only @
> * e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6),7-8' means start 9 EAL thread as below
> * lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> * lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> @@ -571,6 +572,15 @@ convert_to_cpuset(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp,
> * lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> * lcore 7 runs on cpuset 0x80 (cpu 7)
> * lcore 8 runs on cpuset 0x100 (cpu 8)
> + * e.g. '0-2,(3-5)@(3,4),6@(5,6),7@(5-7)'means start 8 EAL threads as below
> + * lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x1 (cpu 0)
> + * lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> + * lcore 2 runs on cpuset ox4 (cpu 2)
> + * lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x18 (cpu 3,4)
> + * lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x60 (cpu 5,6)
> + * lcore 7 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
> + * The second case is used to test bugfix for lflags not be cleared after use
you can put this sentance and description into the commit log
I don't think you should put bugfix description in comments here.
> + */
> */
> static int
> eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores)
> @@ -679,6 +689,8 @@ eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores)
> sizeof(rte_cpuset_t));
> }
>
> + lflags = 0;
> +
> lcores = end + 1;
> } while (*end != '\0');
>
> --
> 2.5.5
Adam Bynes
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix parsing of argument of option --lcores
Hi,
2016-07-21 14:03, Wei Dai:
> The '-' in lcores set overrides cpu set of following
> lcore set in the argument of EAL option --lcores.
>
> Fixes: 53e54bf81700 ("eal: new option --lcores for cpu assignment")
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Dai
Thanks for the catch!
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> @@ -563,6 +563,7 @@ convert_to_cpuset(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp,
> * lcores, cpus could be a single digit/range or a group.
> * '(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
> * If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
> + * The 'a-b' in lcores not within '(' and ')' means a,a+1,...,b-1,b .
It also a range when inside a group.
The difference is the mapping to the cpus.
I think this new comment brings more confusion. Better to skip.
> * e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6),7-8' means start 9 EAL thread as below
> * lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> * lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> @@ -571,6 +572,15 @@ convert_to_cpuset(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp,
> * lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> * lcore 7 runs on cpuset 0x80 (cpu 7)
> * lcore 8 runs on cpuset 0x100 (cpu 8)
> + * e.g. '0-2,(3-5)@(3,4),6@(5,6),7@(5-7)'means start 8 EAL threads as below
> + * lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x1 (cpu 0)
> + * lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> + * lcore 2 runs on cpuset ox4 (cpu 2)
> + * lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x18 (cpu 3,4)
> + * lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x60 (cpu 5,6)
> + * lcore 7 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
> + * The second case is used to test bugfix for lflags not be cleared after use
> + */
> */
Please do not add a second example just to show how to test your fix.
> @@ -679,6 +689,8 @@ eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores)
> sizeof(rte_cpuset_t));
> }
>
> + lflags = 0;
> +
> lcores = end + 1;
> } while (*end != '\0');
It would have more sense to init lflags at the beginning of the loop
and replace
int lflags = 0;
by
int lflags;
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix parsing of argument of option --lcores
The '-' in lcores set overrides cpu set of following
lcore set in the argument of EAL option --lcores.
Fixes: 53e54bf81700 ("eal: new option --lcores for cpu assignment")
Signed-off-by: Wei Dai
---
lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 12
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
index 0a594d7..96eb1a9 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
@@ -563,6 +563,7 @@ convert_to_cpuset(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp,
* lcores, cpus could be a single digit/range or a group.
* '(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
* If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
+ * The 'a-b' in lcores not within '(' and ')' means a,a+1,...,b-1,b .
* e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6),7-8' means start 9 EAL thread as below
* lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
* lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
@@ -571,6 +572,15 @@ convert_to_cpuset(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp,
* lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
* lcore 7 runs on cpuset 0x80 (cpu 7)
* lcore 8 runs on cpuset 0x100 (cpu 8)
+ * e.g. '0-2,(3-5)@(3,4),6@(5,6),7@(5-7)'means start 8 EAL threads as below
+ * lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x1 (cpu 0)
+ * lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
+ * lcore 2 runs on cpuset ox4 (cpu 2)
+ * lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x18 (cpu 3,4)
+ * lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x60 (cpu 5,6)
+ * lcore 7 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
+ * The second case is used to test bugfix for lflags not be cleared after use
+ */
*/
static int
eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores)
@@ -679,6 +689,8 @@ eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores)
sizeof(rte_cpuset_t));
}
+ lflags = 0;
+
lcores = end + 1;
} while (*end != '\0');
--
2.5.5
