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 1E64FA0547; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:37:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D7B40041; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:37:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39EF4003E for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:37:51 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10101"; a="208035674" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,280,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="208035674" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Sep 2021 07:37:33 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,280,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="513806907" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.3.161]) by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Sep 2021 07:37:32 -0700 Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:37:28 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: David Hunt Cc: dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: References: <20210909134511.18871-1-david.hunt@intel.com> <20210909134511.18871-2-david.hunt@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210909134511.18871-2-david.hunt@intel.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/6] build: increase default of max lcores to 512 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 Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 02:45:06PM +0100, David Hunt wrote: > Modern processors are coming with an ever increasing number of cores, > and 128 does not seem like a sensible max limit any more, especially > when you consider multi-socket systems with Hyper-Threading enabled. > > This patch increases max_lcores default from 128 to 512. > > Signed-off-by: David Hunt > --- Thanks Dave, I think this is needed for future-proofing. Question is, though, is 512 enough, or should we push it higher to 768 or 1k even?