[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for cpu assignment
It supports one new eal long option '--lcores' for EAL thread cpuset assignment.
The format pattern:
--lcores='lcores[@cpus]<,lcores[@cpus]>'
lcores, cpus could be a single digit or a group.
'(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6)' means starting 7 EAL thread as below
lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
lcore 2 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x5 (cpu 0,2)
lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang
---
lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c | 1 -
lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 262 -
lib/librte_eal/common/eal_options.h| 2 +
lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 1 +
4 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
index 599f83b..2d732b1 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
@@ -117,4 +117,3 @@ rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore(void)
rte_eal_wait_lcore(lcore_id);
}
}
-
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
index e2810ab..fc47588 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
#include
#include
#include
+#include
#include "eal_internal_cfg.h"
#include "eal_options.h"
@@ -85,6 +86,7 @@ eal_long_options[] = {
{OPT_XEN_DOM0, 0, 0, OPT_XEN_DOM0_NUM},
{OPT_CREATE_UIO_DEV, 1, NULL, OPT_CREATE_UIO_DEV_NUM},
{OPT_VFIO_INTR, 1, NULL, OPT_VFIO_INTR_NUM},
+ {OPT_LCORES, 1, 0, OPT_LCORES_NUM},
{0, 0, 0, 0}
};
@@ -255,9 +257,11 @@ eal_parse_corelist(const char *corelist)
if (min == RTE_MAX_LCORE)
min = idx;
for (idx = min; idx <= max; idx++) {
- cfg->lcore_role[idx] = ROLE_RTE;
- lcore_config[idx].core_index = count;
- count++;
+ if (cfg->lcore_role[idx] != ROLE_RTE) {
+ cfg->lcore_role[idx] = ROLE_RTE;
+ lcore_config[idx].core_index = count;
+ count++;
+ }
}
min = RTE_MAX_LCORE;
} else
@@ -289,6 +293,241 @@ eal_parse_master_lcore(const char *arg)
return 0;
}
+/*
+ * Parse elem, the elem could be single number or '(' ')' group
+ * Within group elem, '-' used for a range seperator;
+ *',' used for a single number.
+ */
+static int
+eal_parse_set(const char *input, uint16_t set[], unsigned num)
+{
+ unsigned idx;
+ const char *str = input;
+ char *end = NULL;
+ unsigned min, max;
+
+ memset(set, 0, num * sizeof(uint16_t));
+
+ while (isblank(*str))
+ str++;
+
+ /* only digit or left bracket is qulify for start point */
+ if ((!isdigit(*str) && *str != '(') || *str == '\0')
+ return -1;
+
+ /* process single number */
+ if (*str != '(') {
+ errno = 0;
+ idx = strtoul(str, &end, 10);
+ if (errno || end == NULL || idx >= num)
+ return -1;
+ else {
+ while (isblank(*end))
+ end++;
+
+ if (*end != ',' && *end != '\0' &&
+ *end != '@')
+ return -1;
+
+ set[idx] = 1;
+ return end - input;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* process set within bracket */
+ str++;
+ while (isblank(*str))
+ str++;
+ if (*str == '\0')
+ return -1;
+
+ min = RTE_MAX_LCORE;
+ do {
+
+ /* go ahead to the first digit */
+ while (isblank(*str))
+ str++;
+ if (!isdigit(*str))
+ return -1;
+
+ /* get the digit value */
+ errno = 0;
+ idx = strtoul(str, &end, 10);
+ if (errno || end == NULL || idx >= num)
+ return -1;
+
+ /* go ahead to separator '-',',' and ')' */
+ while (isblank(*end))
+ end++;
+ if (*end == '-') {
+ if (min == RTE_MAX_LCORE)
+ min = idx;
+ else /* avoid continuous '-' */
+ return -1;
+ } else if ((*end == ',') || (*end == ')')) {
+
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for cpu assignment
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:16:25PM +0800, Cunming Liang wrote:
> It supports one new eal long option '--lcores' for EAL thread cpuset
> assignment.
>
> The format pattern:
> --lcores='lcores[@cpus]<,lcores[@cpus]>'
> lcores, cpus could be a single digit or a group.
> '(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
> If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
>
> e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6)' means starting 7 EAL thread as below
> lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> lcore 2 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
> lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x5 (cpu 0,2)
> lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
>
This strikes me as very confusing, though a couple of tweaks might help with
readability. The lcore 0 at the end is especially confusing. Perhaps we can
limit the allowed formats here,
* require the lcore_id to be specified - the lack of an lcore id for the last
part
makes having it as lcore 0 surprising.
* only allow one lcore id to be given for each set of cores.
I think it may still be readable if we allow the core set to be omitted if its
to be the same as the lcore_id.
It's probably still not going to be very tidy, but I think we can improve
things.
/Bruce
> Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang
> ---
> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c | 1 -
> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 262
> -
> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_options.h| 2 +
> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> index 599f83b..2d732b1 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> @@ -117,4 +117,3 @@ rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore(void)
> rte_eal_wait_lcore(lcore_id);
> }
> }
> -
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> index e2810ab..fc47588 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
>
> #include "eal_internal_cfg.h"
> #include "eal_options.h"
> @@ -85,6 +86,7 @@ eal_long_options[] = {
> {OPT_XEN_DOM0, 0, 0, OPT_XEN_DOM0_NUM},
> {OPT_CREATE_UIO_DEV, 1, NULL, OPT_CREATE_UIO_DEV_NUM},
> {OPT_VFIO_INTR, 1, NULL, OPT_VFIO_INTR_NUM},
> + {OPT_LCORES, 1, 0, OPT_LCORES_NUM},
> {0, 0, 0, 0}
> };
>
> @@ -255,9 +257,11 @@ eal_parse_corelist(const char *corelist)
> if (min == RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> min = idx;
> for (idx = min; idx <= max; idx++) {
> - cfg->lcore_role[idx] = ROLE_RTE;
> - lcore_config[idx].core_index = count;
> - count++;
> + if (cfg->lcore_role[idx] != ROLE_RTE) {
> + cfg->lcore_role[idx] = ROLE_RTE;
> + lcore_config[idx].core_index = count;
> + count++;
> + }
> }
> min = RTE_MAX_LCORE;
> } else
> @@ -289,6 +293,241 @@ eal_parse_master_lcore(const char *arg)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Parse elem, the elem could be single number or '(' ')' group
> + * Within group elem, '-' used for a range seperator;
> + *',' used for a single number.
> + */
> +static int
> +eal_parse_set(const char *input, uint16_t set[], unsigned num)
> +{
> + unsigned idx;
> + const char *str = input;
> + char *end = NULL;
> + unsigned min, max;
> +
> + memset(set, 0, num * sizeof(uint16_t));
> +
> + while (isblank(*str))
> + str++;
> +
> + /* only digit or left bracket is qulify for start point */
> + if ((!isdigit(*str) && *str != '(') || *str == '\0')
> + return -1;
> +
> + /* process single number */
> + if (*str != '(') {
> + errno = 0;
> + idx = strtoul(str, &end, 10);
> + if (errno || end == NULL || idx >= num)
> + return -1;
> + else {
> + while (isblank(*end))
> + end++;
> +
> + if (*end != ',' && *end != '\0' &&
> + *end != '@')
> + return -1;
> +
> + set[idx] = 1;
> + return end - input;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* process set within bracket */
> + str++;
> + while (isblank(*str))
> + str++;
> + if (*str == '\0')
> + return -1;
> +
> + min = RTE_MAX_LCORE;
> + do {
> +
> + /* go ahead to the fi
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for cpu assignment
Hi Bruce,
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:19 PM
> To: Liang, Cunming
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for
> cpu assignment
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:16:25PM +0800, Cunming Liang wrote:
> > It supports one new eal long option '--lcores' for EAL thread cpuset
> > assignment.
> >
> > The format pattern:
> > --lcores='lcores[@cpus]<,lcores[@cpus]>'
> > lcores, cpus could be a single digit or a group.
> > '(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
> > If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
> >
> > e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6)' means starting 7 EAL thread as below
> > lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> > lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> > lcore 2 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
> > lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x5 (cpu 0,2)
> > lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> >
>
> This strikes me as very confusing, though a couple of tweaks might help with
> readability. The lcore 0 at the end is especially confusing.
Didn't get you here: do you find (0,6) confusing, right?
Because braces implicitly specifies affinity for group of en-braced lcores?
> Perhaps we can
> limit the allowed formats here,
> * require the lcore_id to be specified - the lack of an lcore id for the last
> part
> makes having it as lcore 0 surprising.
Again, not sure I understand you properly: lcore_id(s) are always specified
explicitly.
Physical cpus part might be omitted.
> * only allow one lcore id to be given for each set of cores.
So you mean for '(3-5)@(0,2)' user would have to: '3@(0,2),4@(0,2),5@(0,2)'?
I don't see big difference here, but imagine you'd like to create a pool of 32
EAL-threads running on same cpu set.
With current syntax it is just something like: '(32-63)@(0-7)'.
With what you proposing it will be a very long list.
>
> I think it may still be readable if we allow the core set to be omitted if its
> to be the same as the lcore_id.
I think that is supported.
See lcore_id=1 in Steve's example above.
As I understand: --lcores='0,2,3-5' is equal to '-l 0,2,3-5' and to '-c 0x3d'.
Konstantin
>
> It's probably still not going to be very tidy, but I think we can improve
> things.
>
> /Bruce
>
> > Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang
> > ---
> > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c | 1 -
> > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 262
> > -
> > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_options.h| 2 +
> > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 1 +
> > 4 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> > b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> > index 599f83b..2d732b1 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> > @@ -117,4 +117,3 @@ rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore(void)
> > rte_eal_wait_lcore(lcore_id);
> > }
> > }
> > -
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > index e2810ab..fc47588 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
> > #include
> > #include
> > #include
> > +#include
> >
> > #include "eal_internal_cfg.h"
> > #include "eal_options.h"
> > @@ -85,6 +86,7 @@ eal_long_options[] = {
> > {OPT_XEN_DOM0, 0, 0, OPT_XEN_DOM0_NUM},
> > {OPT_CREATE_UIO_DEV, 1, NULL, OPT_CREATE_UIO_DEV_NUM},
> > {OPT_VFIO_INTR, 1, NULL, OPT_VFIO_INTR_NUM},
> > + {OPT_LCORES, 1, 0, OPT_LCORES_NUM},
> > {0, 0, 0, 0}
> > };
> >
> > @@ -255,9 +257,11 @@ eal_parse_corelist(const char *corelist)
> > if (min == RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> > min = idx;
> > for (idx = min; idx <= max; idx++) {
> > - cfg->lcore_role[idx] = ROLE_RTE;
> > - lcore_config[idx].core_index = count;
> > - count++;
> > + if (cfg->lcore_role[idx] != ROLE_RTE) {
> > + cfg->lcore_role[idx] = ROLE_RTE;
> >
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for cpu assignment
Hi,
I want to mention that similar but for me much more readable syntax have
Pktgen-DPDK for defining core - port mapping. Maybe we can adopt this syntax
for new '--lcores' parameter.
See '-m' parameter syntax on Pktgen readme.
https://github.com/pktgen/Pktgen-DPDK/blob/master/dpdk/examples/pktgen/README.md
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 3:34 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce; Liang, Cunming
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for
> cpu
> assignment
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:19 PM
> > To: Liang, Cunming
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for
> > cpu
> assignment
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:16:25PM +0800, Cunming Liang wrote:
> > > It supports one new eal long option '--lcores' for EAL thread cpuset
> assignment.
> > >
> > > The format pattern:
> > > --lcores='lcores[@cpus]<,lcores[@cpus]>'
> > > lcores, cpus could be a single digit or a group.
> > > '(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
> > > If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
> > >
> > > e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6)' means starting 7 EAL thread as below
> > > lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> > > lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> > > lcore 2 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
> > > lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x5 (cpu 0,2)
> > > lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> > >
> >
> > This strikes me as very confusing, though a couple of tweaks might help with
> > readability. The lcore 0 at the end is especially confusing.
>
> Didn't get you here: do you find (0,6) confusing, right?
> Because braces implicitly specifies affinity for group of en-braced lcores?
>
> > Perhaps we can
> > limit the allowed formats here,
> > * require the lcore_id to be specified - the lack of an lcore id for the
> > last part
> > makes having it as lcore 0 surprising.
>
> Again, not sure I understand you properly: lcore_id(s) are always specified
> explicitly.
> Physical cpus part might be omitted.
>
> > * only allow one lcore id to be given for each set of cores.
>
> So you mean for '(3-5)@(0,2)' user would have to: '3@(0,2),4@(0,2),5@(0,2)'?
> I don't see big difference here, but imagine you'd like to create a pool of
> 32 EAL-
> threads running on same cpu set.
> With current syntax it is just something like: '(32-63)@(0-7)'.
> With what you proposing it will be a very long list.
>
> >
> > I think it may still be readable if we allow the core set to be omitted if
> > its
> > to be the same as the lcore_id.
>
> I think that is supported.
> See lcore_id=1 in Steve's example above.
> As I understand: --lcores='0,2,3-5' is equal to '-l 0,2,3-5' and to '-c 0x3d'.
>
> Konstantin
>
> >
> > It's probably still not going to be very tidy, but I think we can improve
> > things.
> >
> > /Bruce
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang
> > > ---
> > > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c | 1 -
> > > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 262
> -
> > > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_options.h| 2 +
> > > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 1 +
> > > 4 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> > > index 599f83b..2d732b1 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> > > @@ -117,4 +117,3 @@ rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore(void)
> > > rte_eal_wait_lcore(lcore_id);
> > > }
> > > }
> > > -
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > > index e2810ab..fc47588 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
> > &g
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for cpu assignment
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 02:34:07PM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:19 PM
> > To: Liang, Cunming
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for
> > cpu assignment
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:16:25PM +0800, Cunming Liang wrote:
> > > It supports one new eal long option '--lcores' for EAL thread cpuset
> > > assignment.
> > >
> > > The format pattern:
> > > --lcores='lcores[@cpus]<,lcores[@cpus]>'
> > > lcores, cpus could be a single digit or a group.
> > > '(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
> > > If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
> > >
> > > e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6)' means starting 7 EAL thread as below
> > > lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> > > lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> > > lcore 2 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
> > > lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x5 (cpu 0,2)
> > > lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> > >
> >
> > This strikes me as very confusing, though a couple of tweaks might help with
> > readability. The lcore 0 at the end is especially confusing.
>
> Didn't get you here: do you find (0,6) confusing, right?
> Because braces implicitly specifies affinity for group of en-braced lcores?
>
> > Perhaps we can
> > limit the allowed formats here,
> > * require the lcore_id to be specified - the lack of an lcore id for the
> > last part
> > makes having it as lcore 0 surprising.
>
> Again, not sure I understand you properly: lcore_id(s) are always specified
> explicitly.
> Physical cpus part might be omitted.
>
> > * only allow one lcore id to be given for each set of cores.
>
> So you mean for '(3-5)@(0,2)' user would have to: '3@(0,2),4@(0,2),5@(0,2)'?
> I don't see big difference here, but imagine you'd like to create a pool of
> 32 EAL-threads running on same cpu set.
> With current syntax it is just something like: '(32-63)@(0-7)'.
> With what you proposing it will be a very long list.
>
> >
> > I think it may still be readable if we allow the core set to be omitted if
> > its
> > to be the same as the lcore_id.
>
> I think that is supported.
> See lcore_id=1 in Steve's example above.
> As I understand: --lcores='0,2,3-5' is equal to '-l 0,2,3-5' and to '-c 0x3d'.
>
> Konstantin
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
/Bruce
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for cpu assignment
> -Original Message-
> From: Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:19 PM
> To: Liang, Cunming
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for
> cpu
> assignment
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:16:25PM +0800, Cunming Liang wrote:
> > It supports one new eal long option '--lcores' for EAL thread cpuset
> > assignment.
> >
> > The format pattern:
> > --lcores='lcores[@cpus]<,lcores[@cpus]>'
> > lcores, cpus could be a single digit or a group.
> > '(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
> > If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
> >
> > e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6)' means starting 7 EAL thread as below
> > lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> > lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> > lcore 2 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
> > lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x5 (cpu 0,2)
> > lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> >
>
> This strikes me as very confusing, though a couple of tweaks might help with
> readability. The lcore 0 at the end is especially confusing. Perhaps we can
> limit the allowed formats here,
> * require the lcore_id to be specified - the lack of an lcore id for the last
> part
> makes having it as lcore 0 surprising.
> * only allow one lcore id to be given for each set of cores.
[Liang, Cunming] The last one lcore_set (0,6) without cpuset assigned is equal
to '(0,6)@(0,6)' or '0@(0,6), 6@(0,6)'.
It's not a typical use case but gives an aggressive sample, it shows the simple
way to explain the map.
>
> I think it may still be readable if we allow the core set to be omitted if its
> to be the same as the lcore_id.
>
> It's probably still not going to be very tidy, but I think we can improve
> things.
>
> /Bruce
>
> > Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang
> > ---
> > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c | 1 -
> > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 262
> -
> > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_options.h| 2 +
> > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 1 +
> > 4 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> > index 599f83b..2d732b1 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> > @@ -117,4 +117,3 @@ rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore(void)
> > rte_eal_wait_lcore(lcore_id);
> > }
> > }
> > -
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > index e2810ab..fc47588 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
> > #include
> > #include
> > #include
> > +#include
> >
> > #include "eal_internal_cfg.h"
> > #include "eal_options.h"
> > @@ -85,6 +86,7 @@ eal_long_options[] = {
> > {OPT_XEN_DOM0, 0, 0, OPT_XEN_DOM0_NUM},
> > {OPT_CREATE_UIO_DEV, 1, NULL, OPT_CREATE_UIO_DEV_NUM},
> > {OPT_VFIO_INTR, 1, NULL, OPT_VFIO_INTR_NUM},
> > + {OPT_LCORES, 1, 0, OPT_LCORES_NUM},
> > {0, 0, 0, 0}
> > };
> >
> > @@ -255,9 +257,11 @@ eal_parse_corelist(const char *corelist)
> > if (min == RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> > min = idx;
> > for (idx = min; idx <= max; idx++) {
> > - cfg->lcore_role[idx] = ROLE_RTE;
> > - lcore_config[idx].core_index = count;
> > - count++;
> > + if (cfg->lcore_role[idx] != ROLE_RTE) {
> > + cfg->lcore_role[idx] = ROLE_RTE;
> > + lcore_config[idx].core_index = count;
> > + count++;
> > + }
> > }
> > min = RTE_MAX_LCORE;
> > } else
> > @@ -289,6 +293,241 @@ eal_parse_master_lcore(const char *arg)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Parse elem, the elem could be single number or '(' ')' group
> > + * Within group elem, '-' used for a range seperator;
> > + *',' used for a
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for cpu assignment
Hi Pawel,
I don't see much different there.
If replacing '@' to '.'; '()' to '[]'; and ',' to '/'; they're almost the same.
Without having rx/tx case, so ':' is useless in our case.
Considering the semantic, '@'(at) is more readable than '.' for core assignment.
-Liang Cunming
> -Original Message-
> From: Wodkowski, PawelX
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:17 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Richardson, Bruce; Liang, Cunming
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for
> cpu
> assignment
>
> Hi,
> I want to mention that similar but for me much more readable syntax have
> Pktgen-DPDK for defining core - port mapping. Maybe we can adopt this syntax
> for new '--lcores' parameter.
>
> See '-m' parameter syntax on Pktgen readme.
> https://github.com/pktgen/Pktgen-DPDK/blob/master/dpdk/examples/pktgen/R
> EADME.md
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 3:34 PM
> > To: Richardson, Bruce; Liang, Cunming
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for
> > cpu
> > assignment
> >
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:19 PM
> > > To: Liang, Cunming
> > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/15] eal: new eal option '--lcores'
> > > for cpu
> > assignment
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:16:25PM +0800, Cunming Liang wrote:
> > > > It supports one new eal long option '--lcores' for EAL thread cpuset
> > assignment.
> > > >
> > > > The format pattern:
> > > > --lcores='lcores[@cpus]<,lcores[@cpus]>'
> > > > lcores, cpus could be a single digit or a group.
> > > > '(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
> > > > If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
> > > >
> > > > e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6)' means starting 7 EAL thread as below
> > > > lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> > > > lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
> > > > lcore 2 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
> > > > lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x5 (cpu 0,2)
> > > > lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
> > > >
> > >
> > > This strikes me as very confusing, though a couple of tweaks might help
> > > with
> > > readability. The lcore 0 at the end is especially confusing.
> >
> > Didn't get you here: do you find (0,6) confusing, right?
> > Because braces implicitly specifies affinity for group of en-braced lcores?
> >
> > > Perhaps we can
> > > limit the allowed formats here,
> > > * require the lcore_id to be specified - the lack of an lcore id for the
> > > last part
> > > makes having it as lcore 0 surprising.
> >
> > Again, not sure I understand you properly: lcore_id(s) are always specified
> > explicitly.
> > Physical cpus part might be omitted.
> >
> > > * only allow one lcore id to be given for each set of cores.
> >
> > So you mean for '(3-5)@(0,2)' user would have to: '3@(0,2),4@(0,2),5@(0,2)'?
> > I don't see big difference here, but imagine you'd like to create a pool of
> > 32 EAL-
> > threads running on same cpu set.
> > With current syntax it is just something like: '(32-63)@(0-7)'.
> > With what you proposing it will be a very long list.
> >
> > >
> > > I think it may still be readable if we allow the core set to be omitted
> > > if its
> > > to be the same as the lcore_id.
> >
> > I think that is supported.
> > See lcore_id=1 in Steve's example above.
> > As I understand: --lcores='0,2,3-5' is equal to '-l 0,2,3-5' and to '-c
> > 0x3d'.
> >
> > Konstantin
> >
> > >
> > > It's probably still not going to be very tidy, but I think we can improve
> > > things.
> > >
> > > /Bruce
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang
> > > > ---
> > > > lib
