From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <users-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA26A0570
for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:41:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF87E4069C;
Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:41:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-pl1-f175.google.com (mail-pl1-f175.google.com
[209.85.214.175])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8669640041
for <users@dpdk.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:41:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pl1-f175.google.com with SMTP id l4so15198407plb.8
for <users@dpdk.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=networkplumber-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112;
h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to
:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date
:message-id:reply-to;
bh=rOXuqX7m+H5mPv4IYv6yipWbWKEyJoz2SxWZL8fJybQ=;
b=xUOfiB5120eu9sbMty2MF8w4VsmAcUxdYo6aV2puV+vVwTq8a9rgMX7cGt1Q9knhUs
aXI+9TU/C+KZRDsygvD4StRQTvlY9xUJnxMmwGcr5omTPmDl1Tgb5etOfNf7VsTDxaZl
99nEDPNg9roXXpsNEG4uMPeZHVOD0AwaPCw63jOJrDFnc3DJWr3sIsaKloVww0Zur4MB
xMZ6Xdqb9V07II/YoRIz7cV5JiDxCpgNeOcBFhtVijCzpdze6qEo255seBGG7BUM8WCl
vNL0LUmlOc75vR+ou4Pkl3jMjl+GC4lsQgzf5+52Faj3XtPIXokIFfO1NCuHFrryzlyL
8TEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to
:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc
:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
bh=rOXuqX7m+H5mPv4IYv6yipWbWKEyJoz2SxWZL8fJybQ=;
b=cvxxQ8if6KHo93I4jhIhAat0D31qlhWs2TKWx39/ojhnXBYvNntzxflvJicgkNFFsN
wdxXoJiLc10dhNJkyHsabSImsb1lULtjdsxLTJR/HcAblJONZNjx+7SnmO0Is+lnJWNr
Z5ZxeyrfIBaStkSH+U9ZubtAZxCOZ3KIJ4pHod8M8FjR1E4uYmAaVoyrq9WQKKdQt1zN
SvzDctWwPDf9qrQxDUPeXzTg8N3pmalrxdB8n/EoRrhISs2SiWqLUgyvcdsSflSdLzBA
9ClmPUXT3WLYgkncS2KZm/f8DKfXzQ1sciXKqYO87wzvgi7doS7uh3tEZ1Fo4vtKYUze
H8rQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2LlqrT1GPD1W650hvG0w7gj+GnXV8jjdeSb3vnV4/dWvU49oXR
W+yG3KEPZOEwurk5Ngf0lgKQOQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4X8PRIDjo6UgwII9p0AkQygHDc/bG5CDAM8UnOQydDVuAZR9TaLMxPuIzMJxWLjhj2u6pPxQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e882:b0:183:4bdf:9298 with SMTP id
w2-20020a170902e88200b001834bdf9298mr5483794plg.116.1666132868518;
Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.local (204-195-120-218.wavecable.com. [204.195.120.218])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
o21-20020a637315000000b00434651f9a96sm8247592pgc.15.2022.10.18.15.41.08
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256);
Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:41:06 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: "Juan Pablo L." <jpablolorenzetti@hotmail.com>
Cc: "users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: lcores clarification
Message-ID: <20221018154106.101b064f@hermes.local>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR04MB66926606ECAABB532742D72CD9289@AM0PR04MB6692.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM0PR04MB66926606ECAABB532742D72CD9289@AM0PR04MB6692.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org
On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 22:06:04 +0000
Juan Pablo L. <jpablolorenzetti@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hellos guys, I have a doubt that I have not been able to clarify with the docs, so maybe you can help me please ...
>
> I have a process that I want to run on a set of CPUs (performing the same task) but I want to run all of them at the same time, so my question is:
>
> if I configure something like "--lcores='2@(5-7)'" that will make my lcore with id 2 run simultaneously (at the same time in parallel) on CPUs 5,6,7 or it will run my lcore id 2 only one time at any given time on either CPU 5,6 or 7 ?
>
> would it be better if I configure different lcore id for the same and assign it to individual CPUs ? , e.g: "--lcores='2@5,3@6,4@7'" even though lcore id 2,3,4 are really the same job ?
>
> I think my question is just a matter of what is the best way to configure EAL to accomplish what I want, that is to run the same process on all CPU available concurrently, even though, I believe, option 2 seems to be the obvious way I just want to make sure I am not doing something that DPDK could do for me already ....
>
> A bonus question if its not too much, since lcores are really pthreads (in linux) and I have isolated the CPUs from the kernel scheduler, my guess is that if I have different lcores (performing the same or different tasks) running on the same CPU DPDK will be doing the scheduling right ? ..
>
> thank you very much!!!!
>
If you have multiple threads running on same lcore, you better not use locks or rings,
or mbufs, or most of the DPDK. Because these features all work like:
while (resource is busy)
spin wait
So if one thread has a resource and gets preempted. When another thread runs
and tries to acquire the same resource; the thread will spin until scheduler
decides to run the other thread.
This is not unique to DPDK, the same problem is described in the pthread_spinlock
man page.