RE: [RFC 0/2] introduce LLC aware functions

["Varghese, Vipin" <Vipin.Varghese@amd.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2054 bytes --]

[Public]


Snipped

>
>
> To to be clear; it's something like this I think of when I say "DOM-style" API.
>
> #ifndef RTE_HWTOPO_H
> #define RTE_HWTOPO_H
>
> struct rte_hwtopo_node;
>
> enum rte_hwtopo_node_type {
>      RTE_HWTOPO_NODE_TYPE_CPU_CORE,
>      RTE_HWTOPO_NODE_TYPE_CACHE,
>      RTE_HWTOPO_NODE_TYPE_NUMA
> };
>
> int
> rte_hwtopo_init(void);
>
> struct rte_hwtopo_node *
> rte_hwtopo_get_core_by_lcore(unsigned int lcore);
>
> struct rte_hwtopo_node *
> rte_hwtopo_get_core_by_id(unsigned int os_cpu_id);
>
> struct rte_hwtopo_node *
> rte_hwtopo_parent(struct rte_hwtopo_node *node);
>
> struct rte_hwtopo_node *
> rte_hwtopo_first_child(struct rte_hwtopo_node *node);
>
> struct rte_hwtopo_node *
> rte_hwtopo_next_child(struct rte_hwtopo_node *node,
>                       struct rte_hwtopo_node *child);
>
> struct rte_hwtopo_node *
> rte_hwtopo_first_sibling(struct rte_hwtopo_node *node);
>
> struct rte_hwtopo_node *
> rte_hwtopo_next_sibling(struct rte_hwtopo_node *node,
>                         struct rte_hwtopo_node *child);
>
> enum rte_hwtopo_node_type
> rte_hwtopo_get_type(struct rte_hwtopo_node *node);
>
> #define RTE_HWTOPO_NODE_ATTR_CORE_FREQUENCY_NOMINAL 0 #define
> RTE_HWTOPO_NODE_ATTR_CACHE_LEVEL 1 #define
> RTE_HWTOPO_NODE_ATTR_CACHE_SIZE 2
>
> int
> rte_hwtopo_get_attr_int64(struct rte_hwtopo_node *node, unsigned int
> attr_name,
>                           int64_t *attr_value);
>
> int
> rte_hwtopo_get_attr_str(struct rte_hwtopo_node *node, unsigned int
> attr_name,
>                         char *attr_value, size_t capacity);
>
> #endif
>
> Surely, this too would be awkward (or should I say cumbersome) to use in certain scenarios.
This appears to be more like hwloc api calls, as shared in my earlier email my intention with the API suggestion is not introduce new library.
I have certain reservations and with my current understanding I am not able to map certain DPDK core mapping. Let discuss this in technical call.

Snipped

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9142 bytes --]