From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Kuenzer Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal/linuxapp: Add parameter to specify master lcore id Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:10:31 +0200 Message-ID: <53CFA637.1090706@neclab.eu> References: <1404808110-16314-1-git-send-email-simon.kuenzer@neclab.eu> <53CD3E26.1060708@neclab.eu> <7F861DC0615E0C47A872E6F3C5FCDDBD01161242@BPXM14GP.gisp.nec.co.jp> <10116389.N4VFaZKECM@xps13> <7F861DC0615E0C47A872E6F3C5FCDDBD011625D2@BPXM14GP.gisp.nec.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: Hiroshi Shimamoto , Thomas Monjalon Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7F861DC0615E0C47A872E6F3C5FCDDBD011625D2-ZmjkEB1lVlLt6d3pZDjeaEtBU8KWyXPq@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" Hi all, the only issue I could imagine is that current DPDK applications are utilizing the implicit assumption that the master lcore is always set to the first available lcore. I would consider this as a "bug" in the application because it sets up its worker threads not "properly". However, as far I could check it, the DPDK framework seems to cope with it correctly. It would be nice if somebody else could confirm my statement. Thanks, Simon On 23.07.2014 10:53, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote: > Hi, > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linuxapp: Add parameter to specify master lcore id >> >> Hi Hiroshi, >> >> 2014-07-22 23:40, Hiroshi Shimamoto: >>> does anyone have interest in this functionality? >>> >>> I think this is important and useful. >>> Since we should care about core assignment to get high performance >>> and the master lcore thread is special in DPDK, we will want to >>> assign the master to the target core. >>> For example, with hyperthreading I'd like to make a pair of packet >>> processing threads into one physical core and separate the master >>> thread which does some management. >> >> Thank you for showing your interest. >> Does it mean you carefully reviewed this patch? In this case, I'd appreciate >> a note "Reviewed-by:". > > Not yet deeply, wait a bit, we're testing this patch in our application. > Will report if it works fine. > > By the way, we should add the same code into the BSD code, right? > > thanks, > Hiroshi > >> >> Thanks >> -- >> Thomas