From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9878FA0530; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:24:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8AA91BFD4; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:24:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0571BFB5 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:24:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E032321B6A; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:24:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:24:15 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=3mkEdm/4n/U2fJ1WhB0kGEWf9tj3B0FXpyCVq7Pfybs=; b=hNuok9ryrAsb Bz1y8VhDj1Oqdt/F3aNYbJG2+GArDAWguE6ASe0j458R3hfcstTe8/OWNjtgyc+C aAC4B5bpfyuSIUpCrhNJ3+KNSVYmVtsOWE0PBBDr0enn21XjUzY4OlHlA+LU7Jgg TvEyrzcw5KEacIPZReUEOCOxdKqJK4c= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=3mkEdm/4n/U2fJ1WhB0kGEWf9tj3B0FXpyCVq7Pfy bs=; b=YQbPRxPykjs1BpOMKc10vgFjX7a2OtQqRbWi8Y1Dbb7j3c0wr2lga42CL U2dtJwqTyL5oHUIXJ5HNZtEMWreKyi/bH4TPZsKFWBiof3sKrKBSc/RontBEMuJB ppzuo5slpbPQ1en3ryi9g0ORUevQD5e3uIlo+7ShqUdgq6U+btYAeJlYQQe2kWPK DqXvuGmCTB8kQYRrwBgJhnOUCxsFHq8jo4vWb/f/vFTQ+GanJFE/E+L2IMfleeJq GOF4kFcQ6SShMztWW9tnDUwLQeDKLdOJtEP7nvTy3XYr5T43xzq3r58QQZSJJmSd i9auoGa9ZyEHb/zAIJfySknBOgOAw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudejgddulecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A911D3060B1E; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:24:14 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand Cc: dev@dpdk.org, aconole@redhat.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:24:12 +0100 Message-ID: <2076701.vBoWY3egPC@xps> In-Reply-To: <20191202153559.9709-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> References: <20191202153559.9709-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Extend --lcores to run on cores > RTE_MAX_LCORE 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 02/12/2019 16:35, David Marchand: > We are currently stuck with no option but recompile a DPDK if the system > has more cores than RTE_MAX_LCORE. > A bit of a pity when you get a system with more than 200+ cores and your > testpmd has been built and packaged with RTE_MAX_LCORE == 128. > > The --lcores does not need to care about the underlying cores, remove > this limitation. > David Marchand (4): > eal/windows: fix cpuset macro name > eal: do not cache lcore detection state > eal: display all detected cores at startup > eal: remove limitation on cpuset with --lcores The patches look good but it is very hard to review parsing code (last patch). We will better experience corner cases after merging. Applied for -rc1, thanks