From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2FB239; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:39:47 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Feb 2019 01:39:46 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,368,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="144194290" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.18.208]) ([10.252.18.208]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2019 01:39:45 -0800 To: David Marchand , dev@dpdk.org Cc: olivier.matz@6wind.com, ktraynor@redhat.com, stable@dpdk.org References: <1550074412-31285-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:39:44 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1550074412-31285-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: restrict ctrl threads to startup cpu affinity X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:39:48 -0000 On 13-Feb-19 4:13 PM, David Marchand wrote: > Spawning the ctrl threads on anything that is not part of the eal > coremask is not that polite to the rest of the system. > > Rather than introduce yet another eal options for this, let's take > the startup cpu affinity as a reference and remove the eal coremask > from it. > If no cpu is left, then we default to the master core. > > The cpuset is computed once at init before the original cpu affinity. > > Fixes: d651ee4919cd ("eal: set affinity for control threads") > Signed-off-by: David Marchand > --- Hi David, Maybe i didn't have enough coffee today and i'm missing something here, but how is this different? Removing the coremask cores from the cpuset will effectively "spawn the ctrl threads on anything that is not part of the EAL coremask" (which is "not that polite to the rest of the system"), unless the application was run with taskset. Is "taskset" the key point here? I.e. by default, we're still "not polite", unless the user asks nicely? :) -- Thanks, Anatoly