RE: [PATCH] usertools: suggest use of hwloc for new cpu

["Varghese, Vipin" <Vipin.Varghese@amd.com>]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2023 9:22 PM
> To: Varghese, Vipin <Vipin.Varghese@amd.com>
> Cc: thomas@monjalon.net; dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh
> <Ferruh.Yigit@amd.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usertools: suggest use of hwloc for new cpu
>
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution
> when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>
>
> 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.

Thanks Stephen, to that I agree `lstopo can change the flags and user might need in various format.`

>
> 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.
> diff --git a/usertools/cpu_layout.py b/usertools/cpu_layout.py index
> 891b9238fa19..37a4f9ff24b4 100755
> --- a/usertools/cpu_layout.py
> +++ b/usertools/cpu_layout.py
> @@ -62,3 +62,8 @@
>          else:
>              output += " " * (max_core_map_len + 1)
>      print(output)
> +
> +print("")
> +print("This tool is unable to cope with complex NUMA layouts")
> +print("and will be removed in a future release.") print("Suggest using
> +lstopo or similar tools instead.")

I am comfortable with the same as it serves the needs. I am happy to `ack` the same too.

> --
> 2.39.2