Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 02/17] eal: new eal option '--lcores' for cpu assignment

[Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>]

Hi,

On 02/02/2015 03:02 AM, Cunming Liang wrote:
> It supports one new eal long option '--lcores' for EAL thread cpuset assignment.
> 
> The format pattern:
> 	--lcores='lcores[@cpus]<,lcores[@cpus]>'
> lcores, cpus could be a single digit/range or a group.
> '(' and ')' are necessary if it's a group.
> If not supply '@cpus', the value of cpus uses the same as lcores.
> 
> e.g. '1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6),7-8' means starting 9 EAL thread as below
>   lcore 0 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
>   lcore 1 runs on cpuset 0x2 (cpu 1)
>   lcore 2 runs on cpuset 0xe0 (cpu 5,6,7)
>   lcore 3,4,5 runs on cpuset 0x5 (cpu 0,2)
>   lcore 6 runs on cpuset 0x41 (cpu 0,6)
>   lcore 7 runs on cpuset 0x80 (cpu 7)
>   lcore 8 runs on cpuset 0x100 (cpu 8)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang <cunming.liang@intel.com>
> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c  |   1 -
>  lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 300 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  lib/librte_eal/common/eal_options.h        |   2 +
>  lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile       |   1 +
>  4 files changed, 299 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> index 599f83b..2d732b1 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_launch.c
> @@ -117,4 +117,3 @@ rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore(void)
>  		rte_eal_wait_lcore(lcore_id);
>  	}
>  }
> -


This line should be removed from the patch.


> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> index 67e02dc..29ebb6f 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
>  #include <rte_lcore.h>
>  #include <rte_version.h>
>  #include <rte_devargs.h>
> +#include <rte_memcpy.h>
>  
>  #include "eal_internal_cfg.h"
>  #include "eal_options.h"
> @@ -85,6 +86,7 @@ eal_long_options[] = {
>  	{OPT_XEN_DOM0, 0, 0, OPT_XEN_DOM0_NUM},
>  	{OPT_CREATE_UIO_DEV, 1, NULL, OPT_CREATE_UIO_DEV_NUM},
>  	{OPT_VFIO_INTR, 1, NULL, OPT_VFIO_INTR_NUM},
> +	{OPT_LCORES, 1, 0, OPT_LCORES_NUM},
>  	{0, 0, 0, 0}
>  };
>  
> @@ -255,9 +257,11 @@ eal_parse_corelist(const char *corelist)
>  			if (min == RTE_MAX_LCORE)
>  				min = idx;
>  			for (idx = min; idx <= max; idx++) {
> -				cfg->lcore_role[idx] = ROLE_RTE;
> -				lcore_config[idx].core_index = count;
> -				count++;
> +				if (cfg->lcore_role[idx] != ROLE_RTE) {
> +					cfg->lcore_role[idx] = ROLE_RTE;
> +					lcore_config[idx].core_index = count;
> +					count++;
> +				}
>  			}
>  			min = RTE_MAX_LCORE;
>  		} else
> @@ -292,6 +296,279 @@ eal_parse_master_lcore(const char *arg)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Parse elem, the elem could be single number/range or '(' ')' group
> + * Within group elem, '-' used for a range seperator;
> + *                    ',' used for a single number.
> + */
> +static int
> +eal_parse_set(const char *input, uint16_t set[], unsigned num)

It's not very clear what elem is. Maybe it could be a bit reworded.
What about naming the function "eal_parse_cpuset()" instead?


> +{
> +	unsigned idx;
> +	const char *str = input;
> +	char *end = NULL;
> +	unsigned min, max;
> +
> +	memset(set, 0, num * sizeof(uint16_t));
> +
> +	while (isblank(*str))
> +		str++;
> +
> +	/* only digit or left bracket is qulify for start point */
> +	if ((!isdigit(*str) && *str != '(') || *str == '\0')
> +		return -1;
> +
> +	/* process single number or single range of number */
> +	if (*str != '(') {
> +		errno = 0;
> +		idx = strtoul(str, &end, 10);
> +		if (errno || end == NULL || idx >= num)
> +			return -1;
> +		else {
> +			while (isblank(*end))
> +				end++;
> +
> +			min = idx;
> +			max = idx;
> +			if (*end == '-') {
> +				/* proccess single <number>-<number> */
> +				end++;
> +				while (isblank(*end))
> +					end++;
> +				if (!isdigit(*end))
> +					return -1;
> +
> +				errno = 0;
> +				idx = strtoul(end, &end, 10);
> +				if (errno || end == NULL || idx >= num)
> +					return -1;
> +				max = idx;
> +				while (isblank(*end))
> +					end++;
> +				if (*end != ',' && *end != '\0')
> +					return -1;
> +			}
> +
> +			if (*end != ',' && *end != '\0' &&
> +			    *end != '@')
> +				return -1;
> +
> +			for (idx = RTE_MIN(min, max);
> +			     idx <= RTE_MAX(min, max); idx++)
> +				set[idx] = 1;
> +
> +			return end - input;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	/* process set within bracket */
> +	str++;
> +	while (isblank(*str))
> +		str++;
> +	if (*str == '\0')
> +		return -1;
> +
> +	min = RTE_MAX_LCORE;
> +	do {
> +
> +		/* go ahead to the first digit */
> +		while (isblank(*str))
> +			str++;
> +		if (!isdigit(*str))
> +			return -1;
> +
> +		/* get the digit value */
> +		errno = 0;
> +		idx = strtoul(str, &end, 10);
> +		if (errno || end == NULL || idx >= num)
> +			return -1;
> +
> +		/* go ahead to separator '-',',' and ')' */
> +		while (isblank(*end))
> +			end++;
> +		if (*end == '-') {
> +			if (min == RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> +				min = idx;
> +			else /* avoid continuous '-' */
> +				return -1;
> +		} else if ((*end == ',') || (*end == ')')) {
> +			max = idx;
> +			if (min == RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> +				min = idx;
> +			for (idx = RTE_MIN(min, max);
> +			     idx <= RTE_MAX(min, max); idx++)
> +				set[idx] = 1;
> +
> +			min = RTE_MAX_LCORE;
> +		} else
> +			return -1;
> +
> +		str = end + 1;
> +	} while (*end != '\0' && *end != ')');
> +
> +	return str - input;
> +}

In the function above, there are some typos in the comments
 seperator -> separator
 qulify -> qualify
 proccess -> process

> +
> +/* convert from set array to cpuset bitmap */
> +static inline int
> +convert_to_cpuset(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp,
> +	      uint16_t *set, unsigned num)

I don't think the function should be inlined



Regards,
Olivier