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 at 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
