From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1BACA04EF; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:22:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1311F1BFEF; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:22:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD6F1BFE3; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:22:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E7DE5800E2; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:22:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 Jun 2020 17:22:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= 5iR5HYSXdk+zdPaJ8za8ZAX+Af+BuDQR3BLSPkDchTQ=; b=WFGoJa25juXLA3/k b2Im7BaPaU+XyAqpdfFzKJfRd2oljRr5VeH1nNtSPC14Ye7EmdZAKCQ/LQ+X8ZWJ 9loLr0Uo04SdrzFNxDt+0SiTUFIuZbARtr9YQ3SZB7X7+7DTdgphNrdCLgswI3ny 24/5KAWC0k9oe7L0fE6eZwIou0GejcNtNkz/k3vGvquDQP/pV7KMcG8LlrAJK24o QiE2suO4HvsLcpXmjSB3P6dNjCOG+3uXzzT0kRWCyKhu0W1wkcoM5384/yO1y8KV COQMeheE3kALKgCo4MbCCk9w7v8kfv8J4EjCQuxcHc+jkuhF/UYvAlf9vvOXcHtS HSs9Cw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=5iR5HYSXdk+zdPaJ8za8ZAX+Af+BuDQR3BLSPkDch TQ=; b=4RaEFWuRnnQ0rvxQyJW8wFxyekNMdxIThoGBSqWvwoZK2McFLDeDPQ+OD bOmz0X8DNJvmaxtHjNYyFCF1IUzqV3sCHHfi4FUou/IBeGL6fucKnJRRCIRN+XhB /hr3fwVbZaSzqHZI3opVE3azZH4xMxAtQRdgEmZZ3vgsAdeKRqgwrfJ3buOodDUm SKWRltMk8O/U6jTZG+T0dLWD70+tDnqw4zXCyVd8YoNG36cY98Y9tXpmRj18FFai SfftX1y0slheoCsEQ5MqTxOeACGl1efGmhY8i6RQCsCjAMzvnuZLddFTdBR9iv0I xYRd7Btx0XmFr3wCY6ZI6HFGAmshQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudefhedgudehvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeffvdffjeeuteelfeeileduudeugfetjeelveefkeejfeeigeeh teffvdekfeegudenucffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejjedrudefge drvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhl fhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3689330618C1; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:22:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Song, Keesang" Cc: David Marchand , "dev@dpdk.org" , "aconole@redhat.com" , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , "bluca@debian.org" , "ktraynor@redhat.com" , "bruce.richardson@intel.com" , "honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com" , "drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "stable@dpdk.org" Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 23:22:52 +0200 Message-ID: <3762540.mo1vFcNuoO@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20191202153559.9709-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Extend --lcores to run on cores > RTE_MAX_LCORE X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 29/05/2020 05:05, Song, Keesang: > Hi Thomas & David, > > We haven't got the final status on this patch, and I don't see this change even from the latest LTS 20.04 repo. > So I'd like to confirm whether this patch has been safely submitted to the main upstream. > Can you check the status of that commit? > > https://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/63507/ As you can see below, there is a pending question: "is it a new feature or a fix?" Kevin and Luca are the arbiters for the backports in 18.11 and 19.11. > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 12:04 AM > > Hi, > > 21/01/2020 01:24, Thomas Monjalon: > > 02/12/2019 16:35, David Marchand: > > > We are currently stuck with no option but recompile a DPDK if the > > > system has more cores than RTE_MAX_LCORE. > > > A bit of a pity when you get a system with more than 200+ cores and > > > your testpmd has been built and packaged with RTE_MAX_LCORE == 128. > > > > > > The --lcores does not need to care about the underlying cores, > > > remove this limitation. > > > > > David Marchand (4): > > > eal/windows: fix cpuset macro name > > > eal: do not cache lcore detection state > > > eal: display all detected cores at startup > > > eal: remove limitation on cpuset with --lcores > > > > The patches look good but it is very hard to review parsing code (last patch). > > We will better experience corner cases after merging. > > > > Applied for -rc1, thanks > > This patch was merged in 20.02. > We don't have any feedback about issues so it's probably working fine. > > It is solving a problem for running DPDK on machines having a lot of cores. > Now the difficult question: is it a new feature or a fix? > Should we backport this patchset?