[AMD Official Use Only - AMD Internal Distribution Only]

> >> 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.