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 6FB2BA034C; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:49:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED7342719; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:49:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252E34270B for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:49:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BD55C00B2; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:49:15 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; bh=Z9u5F68uSYGC01 tpKvxCHI5EjaIyZlDSD10+pPrYyW0=; b=Ac3zrFAZVtDvWn1jNR38YBqCa7tppA JGGHR5ls7dnK35eE4bZ4+0//3AmlQIJffvRIfthJ89SOFgXwQ9e0Rmdh9RJSQTm5 A4dzxuQo02y0Do8tekgcyRVMWdx1vpbZWtqCp78Cs1B6BNP+V/u3wmXx0rZAVRXI UjgagNtYCBbSm/I7rbIA6fISb9zsDCm0rCQl92ooMOxVQwyotL3Rouw2VCXXcNZM izOGDR34o/5bxHBlN4bTb55dWfvBt96wMzPCS9OognhCaX1sqlsk5w0d6ymW0EMA 6MhA6ttEECMA0fYpMQwwsn7xDToMzBIZ1SDcys9J1MqsJude5cn1G8SQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Z9u5F68uSYGC01tpKvxCHI5EjaIyZlDSD10+pPrYy W0=; b=JGEfiKuyVXwUcDvbuWZTFMNCF0tSkRRgjalyUpguS4RCiS1tHhSCJhAit aOeSbuS67mKqoeNyZ+1kHqQiM6tZLqT0TE4wDDD9/ZDjMMxQWhMDUQehByvsSNwU lLuTB1f8bNDHDw7LEdfwUtPctT2nQX1uhER+AFGqOr4TWIxJXSL4aGjo9SqUac10 KbxCo8D5UdzIrTkwiwEQ2wDoaPHlGjBC9A4Ck9TBPU96i827on/jCavVfKjd4Mby eT3aw78ZSx16AU9kIqwkNRqHgfaww86/kXjGv7XgcCRal81R+OFpSubcfPgO2Onu c4ntNOJ/PFMI67sW48yokPDEo+OXQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrledtgdehiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtudenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpeefgeffiefhfeettdfhvdfgteekffffudekvedtvedtvdfgveeuudev gedvgeegtdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:49:14 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , Stephen Hemminger , Ferruh Yigit Cc: Megha Ajmera , dev@dpdk.org, sham.singh.thakur@intel.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com Subject: Re: more than 64 lcores not properly supported Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:49:12 +0100 Message-ID: <11926884.O9o76ZdvQC@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220222131851.2944637-1-megha.ajmera@intel.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D86EE5@smartserver.smartshare.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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 23/02/2022 12:20, Ferruh Yigit: > On 2/23/2022 10:42 AM, Morten Br=F8rup wrote: > > +Thomas, you may be interested in this discussion about applications us= ing an uint64_t bit mask to identify active lcores. > >=20 > >> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 11.03 > >> > >> On 2/23/2022 7:17 AM, Morten Br=F8rup wrote: > >>>> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 17.03 > >=20 > > [...] > >=20 > >>>> > >>>> DPDK now supports > 64 lcores. So all code using/assuming a 64 bit > >> mask > >>>> is broken. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Good point. Is there a TODO-list where such a general review request > >> can be filed, or should we just file it as a system-wide bug in > >> Bugzilla? > >>> > >>> Nonetheless, I think this one-line fix should be accepted as a short > >> term solution. > >>> > >> > >> Hi Morten, > >> > >> I suspect there can be more places that testpmd assumes > >> max core number is 64, someone needs to spend time to > >> analyze and fix it. > >=20 > > My point exactly. Someone needs to spend time to analyze all DPDK libra= ries and applications, and fix it where appropriate. Where do we register t= his required effort, so it can be picked up by someone? > >=20 >=20 > testpmd is an application and it has its own restrictions, > I *assumed* libraries are safe and restriction is only in > testpmd, but may be better to verify this as well. >=20 > > Also, it should probably be mentioned as a known bug in the 22.03 relea= se notes. There are known bugs and things to verify. Known bugs should be in bugzilla + release notes. Verification tasks are difficult to track because there is no point where we can be sure that things are fully verified. Instead I think such kind of verification should be managed as permanent tasks. Do you have a tool or process in mind?