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 0BE82A0C4B; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 19:45:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D19410E5; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 19:45:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C96F40689 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 19:45:27 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1635878726; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=v0OkL3yUj0zv21UtWzrubWrf9tItqBfO8StPILJtFeI=; b=NihQiC2Yw8h/4bqXhHa56cqiS0ydVaYk82KlNgtqC1vlsCOu8K42IIeKzUKxoxA/VDdoVO HioRl13tL8dKgswjm1wXhNk04BTKxcMbdd/zy/yTiG7PJU8tBl9fl7jSz5OMGvCUNNjqq4 Fwn0CM55BdA6mH8qiykAKlysPgweZA0= Received: from mail-lj1-f200.google.com (mail-lj1-f200.google.com [209.85.208.200]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-505-OtxDFE5GPNCd9vBfz2kxSQ-1; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 14:45:24 -0400 X-MC-Unique: OtxDFE5GPNCd9vBfz2kxSQ-1 Received: by mail-lj1-f200.google.com with SMTP id q6-20020a2e2a06000000b00212c856abc8so4852561ljq.4 for ; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 11:45:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=v0OkL3yUj0zv21UtWzrubWrf9tItqBfO8StPILJtFeI=; b=ylrtXjOYlrqZLSepiWmqpookAZGSGsfwvKTtAI51wqUGfH9HqookEgxm+4SnQTj2dI SFS4qLwZtrXyWXrvAMmLMA1Z1dlIOz1YYjhfABQaE2Wf4CCH8O/Ts72hAgKTR7ex5jr5 QQ2cPEfjcBoa/HZHk6htWvXZ6QhN4omnestHpkWkkIQZEPvBWyr1tZbAUt1/0shfwJ4R Z/VZGzC7QdPr9dy7ZuLSUu1qyUt5712YrvVNJ1OW1ydWMA7nyYgdawE71lJKpfArOLP/ O52mdOkdRPdiKVO0gaQE9ISyq4pt1fi3f+hf9Pqw2chp/DtQcK0ZFdNxx2v5KJWNRWsy WpMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MIMgZaH85JZUYE/h7RZHjmuCHWIYeBZ2QztYirUtc2b2QRL9B iCMWEd/GJHaVRyb3glWfgoKdvdyQ+xBFiQubpGYMnSiXP+nDO0jBQnoSWsxliDaEzDVpoWObJ9O m6lmmrpTKJEyUSsvyST4= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8e76:: with SMTP id t22mr5531668ljk.81.1635878722744; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 11:45:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzCc3Nqdi8OGjnOjAY9N6dpOSXsr/jd9PXtrdq2z6IJlu/LUGRa7aMM4el6ZTpw/ng6+E1fvh5OLeFVX1IL2po= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8e76:: with SMTP id t22mr5531644ljk.81.1635878722507; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 11:45:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211102145253.413467-1-aman.kumar@vvdntech.in> In-Reply-To: <20211102145253.413467-1-aman.kumar@vvdntech.in> From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 19:45:11 +0100 Message-ID: To: Aman Kumar Cc: dev , Thomas Monjalon , "Song, Keesang" Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] config/x86: add support for AMD platform 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 Sender: "dev" On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:53 PM Aman Kumar wrote: > > -Dcpu_instruction_set=znverX meson option can be used > to build dpdk for AMD platforms. Supported options are > znver1, znver2 and znver3. > > Signed-off-by: Aman Kumar > --- > config/x86/meson.build | 9 +++++++++ > doc/guides/linux_gsg/build_dpdk.rst | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/config/x86/meson.build b/config/x86/meson.build > index 29f3dea181..21cda6fd33 100644 > --- a/config/x86/meson.build > +++ b/config/x86/meson.build > @@ -72,3 +72,12 @@ endif > dpdk_conf.set('RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE', 64) > dpdk_conf.set('RTE_MAX_LCORE', 128) > dpdk_conf.set('RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES', 32) > + > +# AMD platform support > +if get_option('cpu_instruction_set') == 'znver1' > + dpdk_conf.set('RTE_MAX_LCORE', 256) > +elif get_option('cpu_instruction_set') == 'znver2' > + dpdk_conf.set('RTE_MAX_LCORE', 512) > +elif get_option('cpu_instruction_set') == 'znver3' > + dpdk_conf.set('RTE_MAX_LCORE', 512) > +endif I already replied to a similar patch earlier in this release. https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/CAJFAV8z-5amvEnr3mazkTqH-7SZX_C6EqCua6UdMXXHgrcmT6g@mail.gmail.com/ So repeating the same: do you actually _need_ more than 128 lcores in a single DPDK application? -- David Marchand