From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30629E4 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:17:31 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jan 2019 02:17:30 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,488,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="115363512" Received: from irsmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.99]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2019 02:17:29 -0800 Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.65]) by IRSMSX107.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.10.127]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:17:28 +0000 From: "Van Haaren, Harry" To: "Pathak, Pravin" , "users@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Service cores and multi-process Thread-Index: AdSuEKfKIno6t6uXTtO2OWWL9vGL2AAPPaaA Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:17:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <168A68C163D584429EF02A476D5274424DEA9097@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <168A68C163D584429EF02A476D5274424DEA9097@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNmM1ZDA2OWQtMjhhNy00MjQ4LTk4NjgtMjhiMTcxNWM4ZGZlIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiSnJaQW9WVzFuOG5lK2NxMDhpeXk2REJaNFwveEgxaVZsNDU3XC8xNWJZSUpcL24rRGZWZlhZZDBsd2syVzhlN0haWiJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Service cores and multi-process X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:17:32 -0000 Hi Pravin, > -----Original Message----- > From: users [mailto:users-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Pathak, Pravin > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 3:02 AM > To: users@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-users] Service cores and multi-process >=20 > Hi All - >=20 > In case of DPDK multi-process mode, do we need to give same service core > masks for all process invocation? No it is not required to give the exact same service-core mask. This is the same for "normal" DPDK lcores - they can be different in the secondary than they are in the primary. > Regards > Pravin Regards, -Harry