From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7882A00C3; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:12:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8164141226; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:12:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pl1-f177.google.com (mail-pl1-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4DB411B2 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:12:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pl1-f177.google.com with SMTP id c9so6961512pll.0 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:12:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nWiig7F89pyVpPZmeJ7fqUrHQb4yCz3zfdBU3cNRd70=; b=uHdfdYgB37rbGZyjmzvJDj9w5oWUReGRILFaJYpYMK2+y4Us3i6uA1GzW6kro6uqbp OqP1wTYq8qrvlu3Q/rg1W4deUxTzV4wfxtbfB+jFjXTr+MNsvPpHtDy1el99Kk8AbRHG Sbs+rN8vzsIQL3ZArNv7Gzvye22PwjCiNbwjbE4gqk+O5+dzTTpyhzZMas/oSuwsZa1n aAwT6TXsGKAIMuyF83oU2m0P5yt/TKAR5PBS7dScJ+2NkBEziamOIoWWt9w10CuAOIxb d/uYa4J66aw9ThD82EN+EbxUceArs1GbsG0UvLCPRIpZrrXpVOjAzZ7FzMx99q1KvOPH NuQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nWiig7F89pyVpPZmeJ7fqUrHQb4yCz3zfdBU3cNRd70=; b=KFo39KzMXHudLghf11Vfg+1k6mRvjn0vIc+VtvBOcS4wC6YLAdrxgJzcfev9CgjYey R1p7f4N0ybJK2AeNXr+gwrXW3YcsJjPLYhX76PBvOujlKIsq+r4J4vuSmhe25wkIYo6K d4syj7LXCRBoiv8VT+w7TjEt4unz/Ef9S7/gCVUvRaSQhtnz6wqF0aUn9RaBigOjFDx6 huhJeMNRGzacQHBbRKv6r4AmpnrEYax4fU93N0yNSwx1Zh80gKMSQCaoQPz4LQ38cU6t 8C5XmpdNOp0IHhIt9pDq6SrBxeBM4qQHeQ5wVQQ6GXgwDgjvDgdtJUnf4qfa2xkoQV4W AdMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531nwHy3ObIeAh8o3WwQxgvXbLWpIyI15C00chDuqdpxnGOAe9Wp 0dvMV6oeD8+RCK9lvNgyg3OgzQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJykfDalUs8fMYaBoGvFXHNy5EPFk8RWorF0giag73rehLWBYSZ5uRXLNl2aXcSgJgP2hKK6kg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e5ca:b0:14f:3a3d:44a5 with SMTP id u10-20020a170902e5ca00b0014f3a3d44a5mr665plf.139.1645629151881; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:12:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-112-199.wavecable.com. [204.195.112.199]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e28sm24345539pgm.23.2022.02.23.07.12.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:12:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:12:28 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Morten =?UTF-8?B?QnLDuHJ1cA==?= , Ferruh Yigit , Megha Ajmera , dev@dpdk.org, sham.singh.thakur@intel.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com Subject: Re: more than 64 lcores not properly supported Message-ID: <20220223071228.1ab4b60e@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <11926884.O9o76ZdvQC@thomas> References: <20220222131851.2944637-1-megha.ajmera@intel.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D86EE5@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <11926884.O9o76ZdvQC@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:49:12 +0100 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 23/02/2022 12:20, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 2/23/2022 10:42 AM, Morten Br=C3=B8rup wrote: =20 > > > +Thomas, you may be interested in this discussion about applications = using an uint64_t bit mask to identify active lcores. > > > =20 > > >> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com] > > >> Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 11.03 > > >> > > >> On 2/23/2022 7:17 AM, Morten Br=C3=B8rup wrote: =20 > > >>>> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org] > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 17.03 =20 > > >=20 > > > [...] > > > =20 > > >>>> > > >>>> DPDK now supports > 64 lcores. So all code using/assuming a 64 bit= =20 > > >> mask =20 > > >>>> is broken. > > >>>> =20 > > >>> > > >>> Good point. Is there a TODO-list where such a general review reques= t =20 > > >> can be filed, or should we just file it as a system-wide bug in > > >> Bugzilla? =20 > > >>> > > >>> Nonetheless, I think this one-line fix should be accepted as a shor= t =20 > > >> term solution. =20 > > >>> =20 > > >> > > >> Hi Morten, > > >> > > >> I suspect there can be more places that testpmd assumes > > >> max core number is 64, someone needs to spend time to > > >> analyze and fix it. =20 > > >=20 > > > My point exactly. Someone needs to spend time to analyze all DPDK lib= raries and applications, and fix it where appropriate. Where do we register= this required effort, so it can be picked up by someone? > > > =20 > >=20 > > testpmd is an application and it has its own restrictions, > > I *assumed* libraries are safe and restriction is only in > > testpmd, but may be better to verify this as well. > > =20 > > > Also, it should probably be mentioned as a known bug in the 22.03 rel= ease notes. =20 >=20 > There are known bugs and things to verify. > Known bugs should be in bugzilla + release notes. > Verification tasks are difficult to track because there is no point > where we can be sure that things are fully verified. > Instead I think such kind of verification should be managed > as permanent tasks. Do you have a tool or process in mind? >=20 >=20 Agree take the fix for now. Since many places use a mask of cpus and/or ports. It would be good to have common code for handling this.