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 16788A0350; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:37:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ADD51BFE4; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:37:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352F21BFCD for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:37:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1D6580545; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:37:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:37:45 -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= fojxMXLGP3dEOiQdRmZ0aeZIp52cgHXWHZKPy72IwlE=; b=PemnqrSZhKiV+wlU ItdIjU9FGOZ5lap67ET91nARQJFQRBBuEsunR10yQY4I7DP39P5VhzCXZj96ur8B FFSanas8DqkugnlA8QLMeLYIoWzetQXGLcASQHwkA/YRjZt8QFhi1VXv1WTQVjB5 HQJkVEZuFiqdxzz2Ordtu8nwjlQLrxXqqHzz9E+yTySGaNg3X/jqMRFE+FC9sVxA Nv4EPzP7CAYNQ0Ap1N0hoONG71iUxtJCOJ+o6NqWg0Mhevz/ZaUbrX3Gg5NojbI6 rqmR5Yluxn4K9DLB1J2X4vkvrchTz7dimKn1onMiQzMSc6zQZlFd6h6UYSWP7TNs 49gZrA== 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=fm3; bh=fojxMXLGP3dEOiQdRmZ0aeZIp52cgHXWHZKPy72Iw lE=; b=AUFZ+LssEh+F6aiEyyvVvPOF3oos2uMDnCJ2lSZMFEEVCzt/UIh+kpwB4 kHoCej6Gn6wpsnAfhscvdV+cbdi5nsfLJ5GPCh7eZOMfi9HVvXl50LrRD5RBZ3DQ pwyVzx1jFrwX5rPoSnbIDnhk71wbcvgtFh1YIOhtc0FfTMVrHEE2RVzDnHNTZiI8 FYQdp0oUtwf9xWGHe3LK+9VXuOJ3mogp7BCFJahP0DFtLZMDjfOwqpRHPXuwhgnM 8KtoTBU5fQEoPTclEbatZMrio11eTGIgoIy5xe4VDT5ssEfEv/21rBFK1KewAMXg o/yzEjwTw3KeCZkQOHcJpFP3DfA/A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrtddtgdeglecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth 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 07B3F30600AA; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:37:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Olivier Matz Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , David Marchand , "dev@dpdk.org" , "jerinjacobk@gmail.com" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "mdr@ashroe.eu" , "ktraynor@redhat.com" , "Stokes, Ian" , "i.maximets@ovn.org" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Kovacevic, Marko" , "Burakov, Anatoly" , Andrew Rybchenko , Neil Horman Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:37:41 +0200 Message-ID: <3823283.pUm9iA3pyp@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20200630124409.GL5869@platinum> References: <20200610144506.30505-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20200630124409.GL5869@platinum> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/9] eal: register non-EAL threads as lcores 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" 30/06/2020 14:44, Olivier Matz: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:07:32PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > I think it is better than nothing, but probably not the best one. > > Apart from possible non-consistent behaviour, it is quite restrictive: > > dynamic lcore_id wouldn't be available on any DPDK MP deployment. > > Which is a pity - I think it is a cool and useful feature. > > > > What do you guys think about different approach: > > introduce new optional EAL parameter to restrict lcore_id > > values available for the process. > > > > #let say to start primary proc that can use lcore_id=[0-99] only: > > dpdk_primary --lcore-allow=0-99 ... --file-prefix=xz1 > > > > #to start secondary one for it with allowed lcore_id=[100-109]: > > dpdk_secondary --lcore-allow=100-109 ... --file-prefix=xz1 --proc-type=secondary > > > > It is still a workaround, but that way we don't need to > > add any new limitations for dynamic lcores and secondary process usage. > > Now it is up to user to decide would multiple-process use the same shared data > > and if so - split lcore_id space properly among them > > (same as he has to do now with static lcores). > > A variant (more simple) of your approach could be to add > "--proc-type=standalone" to explicitly disable MP and enable dynamic thread > registration. I don't adding a restriction from user input is adding a feature. Konstantin wants to support multi-process with non-EAL threads, which is the opposite of your proposal, Olivier :-)