From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFEA61041 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 14:25:49 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jan 2019 05:25:47 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,489,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="267871208" Received: from fmsmsx108.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.206]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2019 05:25:48 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx125.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.125.40) by FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 05:25:48 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx108.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.9.99]) by FMSMSX125.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.19]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 05:25:48 -0800 From: "Pathak, Pravin" To: "Van Haaren, Harry" , "users@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Service cores and multi-process Thread-Index: AdSuEKfKIno6t6uXTtO2OWWL9vGL2AAPPaaAAAaKKNA= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 13:25:47 +0000 Message-ID: <168A68C163D584429EF02A476D5274424DEA932B@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <168A68C163D584429EF02A476D5274424DEA9097@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNmM1ZDA2OWQtMjhhNy00MjQ4LTk4NjgtMjhiMTcxNWM4ZGZlIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiSnJaQW9WVzFuOG5lK2NxMDhpeXk2REJaNFwveEgxaVZsNDU3XC8xNWJZSUpcL24rRGZWZlhZZDBsd2syVzhlN0haWiJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.1.200.106] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Service cores and multi-process X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 13:25:50 -0000 Hi Harry - Thanks. Extending the same question further, if two processes (within sam= e DPDK instance) need same service, then should they both specify same serv= ice core mask? I assumed primary process will start the service on service cores and secon= dary process (using same service core mask) will use the service. Thanks Pravin -----Original Message----- From: Van Haaren, Harry=20 Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 5:17 AM To: Pathak, Pravin ; users@dpdk.org Subject: RE: Service cores and multi-process Hi Pravin, > -----Original Message----- > From: users [mailto:users-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Pathak,=20 > Pravin > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 3:02 AM > To: users@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-users] Service cores and multi-process >=20 > Hi All - >=20 > In case of DPDK multi-process mode, do we need to give same service=20 > core masks for all process invocation? No it is not required to give the exact same service-core mask. This is the same for "normal" DPDK lcores - they can be different in the se= condary than they are in the primary. > Regards > Pravin Regards, -Harry