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

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2244 bytes --]

[AMD Official Use Only - AMD Internal Distribution Only]


<snipped>

>
> >> Yes, this does help clarify things a lot as to why current NUMA
> >> support would be insufficient to express what you are describing.
> >>
> >> However, in that case I would echo sentiment others have expressed
> >> already as this kind of deep sysfs parsing doesn't seem like it would
> >> be in scope for EAL, it sounds more like something a
> >> sysadmin/orchestration (or the application itself) would do.
> >>
> >> I mean, in principle I'm not opposed to having such an API, it just
> >> seems like the abstraction would perhaps need to be a bit more robust
> >> than directly referencing cache structure? Maybe something that
> >> degenerates into NUMA nodes would be better, so that applications
> >> wouldn't have to *specifically* worry about cache locality but
> >> instead have a more generic API they can use to group cores together?
> >>
> >
> > Unfortunately can't cover all usecases by sysadmin/orchestration (as
> > graph usecase one above), and definitely too much HW detail for the
> > application, that is why we required some programmatic way (APIs) for
> > applications.
> >
> > And we are on the same page that, the more we can get away from
> > architecture details in the abstraction (APIs) better it is, overall
> > intention is to provide ways to application to find lcores works
> > efficiently with each other.
> >
> > For this what do you think about slightly different API *, like:
> > ```
> > rte_get_next_lcore_ex(uint i, u32 flag) ```
> >
> > Based on the flag, we can grab the next eligible lcore, for this patch
> > the flag can be `RTE_LCORE_LLC`, but options are wide and different
> > architectures can have different grouping to benefit most from HW in a
> > vendor agnostic way.
> > I like the idea, what do you think about this abstraction?
> >
> > * Kudos to Vipin 😉
> >
>
> Hi Ferruh,
>
> In principle, having flags for this sort of thing sounds like a better way to go. I
> do like this idea as well! It of course remains to be seen how it can work in
> practice but to me it certainly looks like a path worth exploring.
>

Sharing the new RFC shortly.

<snipped>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7640 bytes --]