Following "options parsing" patchset (commit d7cb626f and 489a9d6c), core detection is not working correctly on bsd. ./x86_64-native-bsdapp-gcc/app/test -c f -n 4 -- -i [...] EAL: lcore 0 unavailable EAL: invalid coremask Align bsd to linux: - commit f563a372 "eal: fix recording of detected/enabled logical cores" - commit 4f04db8b "eal: check coremask against detected lcores" Reported-by: Zhan, Zhaochen <zhaochen.zhan@intel.com> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com> --- lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c | 6 +++--- lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal_lcore.c | 15 +++++++++------ 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c index c40a59a..ca99cb9 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c @@ -517,6 +517,9 @@ rte_eal_init(int argc, char **argv) if (rte_eal_log_early_init() < 0) rte_panic("Cannot init early logs\n"); + if (rte_eal_cpu_init() < 0) + rte_panic("Cannot detect lcores\n"); + fctret = eal_parse_args(argc, argv); if (fctret < 0) exit(1); @@ -551,9 +554,6 @@ rte_eal_init(int argc, char **argv) rte_config_init(); - if (rte_eal_cpu_init() < 0) - rte_panic("Cannot detect lcores\n"); - if (rte_eal_memory_init() < 0) rte_panic("Cannot init memory\n"); diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal_lcore.c b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal_lcore.c index 43a5c01..5b52eba 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal_lcore.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal_lcore.c @@ -71,16 +71,18 @@ rte_eal_cpu_init(void) unsigned count = 0; const unsigned ncpus = get_ncpus(); - - /* disable lcores that were not detected */ - RTE_LCORE_FOREACH(lcore_id) { - + /* + * Parse the maximum set of logical cores, detect the subset of running + * ones and enable them by default. + */ + for (lcore_id = 0; lcore_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE; lcore_id++) { lcore_config[lcore_id].detected = (lcore_id < ncpus); if (lcore_config[lcore_id].detected == 0) { config->lcore_role[lcore_id] = ROLE_OFF; continue; } - count++; + /* By default, each detected core is enabled */ + config->lcore_role[lcore_id] = ROLE_RTE; lcore_config[lcore_id].core_id = cpu_core_id(lcore_id); lcore_config[lcore_id].socket_id = cpu_socket_id(lcore_id); if (lcore_config[lcore_id].socket_id >= RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES) @@ -93,8 +95,9 @@ rte_eal_cpu_init(void) #endif RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Detected lcore %u\n", lcore_id); + count ++; } - + /* Set the count of enabled logical cores of the EAL configuration */ config->lcore_count = count; RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Support maximum %u logical core(s) by configuration.\n", RTE_MAX_LCORE); -- 1.7.10.4
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:43:31AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> Following "options parsing" patchset (commit d7cb626f and 489a9d6c), core
> detection is not working correctly on bsd.
>
> ./x86_64-native-bsdapp-gcc/app/test -c f -n 4 -- -i
> [...]
> EAL: lcore 0 unavailable
> EAL: invalid coremask
>
> Align bsd to linux:
> - commit f563a372 "eal: fix recording of detected/enabled logical cores"
> - commit 4f04db8b "eal: check coremask against detected lcores"
>
> Reported-by: Zhan, Zhaochen <zhaochen.zhan@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > Following "options parsing" patchset (commit d7cb626f and 489a9d6c), core
> > detection is not working correctly on bsd.
> >
> > ./x86_64-native-bsdapp-gcc/app/test -c f -n 4 -- -i
> > [...]
> > EAL: lcore 0 unavailable
> > EAL: invalid coremask
> >
> > Align bsd to linux:
> > - commit f563a372 "eal: fix recording of detected/enabled logical cores"
> > - commit 4f04db8b "eal: check coremask against detected lcores"
> >
> > Reported-by: Zhan, Zhaochen <zhaochen.zhan@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
>
> Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Tested-by: Zhaochen Zhan <zhaochen.zhan@intel.com>
This patch has been verified on FreeBSD 10.0.
DPDK base commit: 3043ce5011aa7075b32c80c79b9db96199938602
CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 v2 @ 2.80GHz
GCC: gcc48 (FreeBSD Ports Collection) 4.8.3
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:43:31AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> Following "options parsing" patchset (commit d7cb626f and 489a9d6c), core
> detection is not working correctly on bsd.
>
> ./x86_64-native-bsdapp-gcc/app/test -c f -n 4 -- -i
> [...]
> EAL: lcore 0 unavailable
> EAL: invalid coremask
>
> Align bsd to linux:
> - commit f563a372 "eal: fix recording of detected/enabled logical cores"
> - commit 4f04db8b "eal: check coremask against detected lcores"
>
> Reported-by: Zhan, Zhaochen <zhaochen.zhan@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Though, that said, why are these files diverged in the first place? At least as
far as eal_lcore.c and eal.c are concerned the only differences appear to be
cases of one file being updated and not the other. It seems that, rather than
doing a patch like this to bring bsd up to date with linux, we should just
de-dup the files, put them in a common location and handle any real behavioral
differences with macros/ifdefs. Is there a reason for separating them?
Neil
Hello Neil,
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
>
> Though, that said, why are these files diverged in the first place? At
> least as
> far as eal_lcore.c and eal.c are concerned the only differences appear to
> be
> cases of one file being updated and not the other. It seems that, rather
> than
> doing a patch like this to bring bsd up to date with linux, we should just
> de-dup the files, put them in a common location and handle any real
> behavioral
> differences with macros/ifdefs. Is there a reason for separating them?
>
I agree that there should only be one file for those things (and a lot of
other stuff like eal_debug, eal_log etc...).
This is not that easy: I tried once and gave up because the resulting
patchset was huge.
Personally, I don't have time to dig into this.
--
David Marchand
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 01:23:49PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > Hello Neil, > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > > > Though, that said, why are these files diverged in the first place? At > > least as > > far as eal_lcore.c and eal.c are concerned the only differences appear to > > be > > cases of one file being updated and not the other. It seems that, rather > > than > > doing a patch like this to bring bsd up to date with linux, we should just > > de-dup the files, put them in a common location and handle any real > > behavioral > > differences with macros/ifdefs. Is there a reason for separating them? > > > > I agree that there should only be one file for those things (and a lot of > other stuff like eal_debug, eal_log etc...). > This is not that easy: I tried once and gave up because the resulting > patchset was huge. > Personally, I don't have time to dig into this. > No one ever does, thats how messes like this happen :) I've got a bsd guest installed, I'll see if I can clean it up. Neil > > -- > David Marchand
> > > Following "options parsing" patchset (commit d7cb626f and 489a9d6c), core
> > > detection is not working correctly on bsd.
> > >
> > > ./x86_64-native-bsdapp-gcc/app/test -c f -n 4 -- -i
> > > [...]
> > > EAL: lcore 0 unavailable
> > > EAL: invalid coremask
> > >
> > > Align bsd to linux:
> > > - commit f563a372 "eal: fix recording of detected/enabled logical cores"
> > > - commit 4f04db8b "eal: check coremask against detected lcores"
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Zhan, Zhaochen <zhaochen.zhan@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
> > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> Tested-by: Zhaochen Zhan <zhaochen.zhan@intel.com>
Applied
Thanks
--
Thomas