From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
Cc: "Konstantin Ananyev" <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>,
"Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
"Varghese, Vipin" <Vipin.Varghese@amd.com>,
"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"techboard@dpdk.org" <techboard@dpdk.org>,
"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usertools: suggest use of hwloc for new cpu
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 11:20:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZPWvi+53kg0KBX3J@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40e74786-5854-37c2-7f52-1e5d43996b5d@amd.com>
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 11:11:20AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 8/14/2023 10:25 AM, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 08:52:01AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 02:12:03 +0000
> >>> "Varghese, Vipin" <Vipin.Varghese@amd.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 06:27:20 +0530
> >>>>> Vipin Varghese <vipin.varghese@amd.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Most modern processor now supports numa by partitioning NUMA based on
> >>>>>> CPU-IO & Last Level Cache within the same socket.
> >>>>>> As per the discussion in mailing list, suggesting the make use of
> >>>>>> hw-loc for such scenarios.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vipin Varghese <vipin.varghese@amd.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> NAK, no scripting hwloc, it is ugly and creates a dependency that is not listed
> >>>>> in DPDK packaging.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no calls to hwloc within in thescript. Hence not clear what does ` NAK, no scripting hwloc it is ugly and creates a
> >> dependency that is not listed in DPDK packaging.`.
> >>>>
> >>>> Requesting to cross check why NAK is shared for `print` as suggestion. Hence, I have disagree to this.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, I misinterpreted what the print's were doing.
> >>> Better off not to list exact flags, the lstopo may change and user may want different
> >>> format anyway.
> >>>
> >>> How about something like this?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++
> >>> usertools/cpu_layout.py | 5 +++++
> >>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >>> index 317875c5054b..25a116900dfb 100644
> >>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >>> @@ -185,3 +185,8 @@ Deprecation Notices
> >>> will be deprecated and subsequently removed in DPDK 24.11 release.
> >>> Before this, the new port library API (functions rte_swx_port_*)
> >>> will gradually transition from experimental to stable status.
> >>> +
> >>> +* cpulayout: The CPU layout script is unable to deal with all the possible
> >>> + complexities of modern CPU topology. Other existing tools offer more
> >>> + features and do a better job with keeping up with innovations.
> >>> + Therefore it will be deprecated and removed in a future release.
> >>
> >> Does the script really do that bad a job? While I can understand us looking
> >> to recommend alternatives, I actually find the script in it's current form
> >> really handy - much more so than working out the exact flags for lstopo
> >> etc. Since it's not a large maintenance burden, I'd request we keep it
> >> around - while still recommending lstopo to users.
> >
> > +1
> > I do use it on regular basis.
> > It would be a pity if it will be gone.
> >
>
> I also use it time to time and find it useful.
>
> But it is not accurate/correct for some AMD platforms (for various NPS
> (Nodes per Socket) values).
> So either it needs to be updated/improved or replaced.
>
> Vipin sent a patch [1] to update it but it is question how much of this
> logic belongs to DPDK, or should we rely on external tools dedicated for
> this purpose.
>
I'd like to suggest that we take a slightly ambiguous position on this
script. Specifically:
I think we should "recommend" but not "rely on" external tools for this.
Specifically, I think that recommending use of hwloc is the best thing to
do as it's better maintained and packaged for windows. However, for quick
use in many situations, cpu_layout does the job as well or better in terms
of simplicity of use and output.
/Bruce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-04 10:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-12 0:57 Vipin Varghese
2023-08-12 15:00 ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-08-13 2:12 ` Varghese, Vipin
2023-08-13 15:52 ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-08-13 16:35 ` Varghese, Vipin
2023-08-14 8:52 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-08-14 9:13 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-14 9:25 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-09-04 10:11 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-09-04 10:20 ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2023-09-04 13:22 ` Thomas Monjalon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-08-12 0:37 Vipin Varghese
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZPWvi+53kg0KBX3J@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=Vipin.Varghese@amd.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).