> On Oct 14, 2020, at 1:53 AM, Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech> wrote:
>
> Hi Dharmik,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 5:15 PM
>> To: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech>
>> Cc: tho...@monjalon.net; dev@dpdk.org; Stephen Hemminger
>> <step...@networkplumber.org>; Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>; nd
>> <n...@arm.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] build: find max lcore programmatically
>>
>> Hi Juraj,
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 2020, at 9:58 AM, Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe we're going to drop this patch series in favor of
>> http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=12923.
>>
>> I can see you have included this feature in your series. Thank you!
>> What are your thoughts on the other patch [1]? Do you plan on including that
>> as
>> well in your series?
>>
>> [1] [1/2] config/arm: avoid variable reuse
>> https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/75946/
>>
>
> I believe the general idea of your patch is alredy part of my patch series in
> this patch: http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/80572/
Great, thank you! I will drop these patches.
>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:32 PM
>>>> To: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech>; dev@dpdk.org; Stephen
>>>> Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; Jerin Jacob
>>>> <jerinjac...@gmail.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] build: find max lcore
>>>> programmatically
>>>>
>>>> Please, what is the conclusion here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 18/09/2020 07:47, Dharmik Thakkar:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2020, at 4:56 AM, Juraj Linkeš
>>>>>> <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 7:44 AM
>>>>>>> To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech>; Jerin Jacob
>>>>>>> <jerinjac...@gmail.com>; tho...@monjalon.net; dpdk-dev
>>>>>>> <dev@dpdk.org>; nd <n...@arm.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] build: find max lcore
>>>>>>> programmatically
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2020, at 5:52 PM, Stephen Hemminger
>>>>>>> <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 06:20:17 +0000 Juraj Linkeš
>>>>>>>> <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Dharmik Thakkar
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:56 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: tho...@monjalon.net; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; nd
>>>>>>>>>> <n...@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] build: find max lcore
>>>>>>>>>> programmatically
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2020, at 11:47 PM, Jerin Jacob
>>>>>>>>>>> <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:44 AM Dharmik Thakkar
>>>>>>>>>> <dharmik.thak...@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For Arm, RTE_MAX_LCORE is hard-coded into the config. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to incorrect RTE_MAX_LCORE when machines have same
>>>> Implemener
>>>>>>>>>>>> and part number but different number of CPUs.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For x86, RTE_MAX_LCORE is always set to 128 (using the value
>>>>>>>>>>>> set in
>>>>>>>>>>>> meson_options.txt)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Use python script to find max lcore when using native build
>>>>>>>>>>>> to correctly set RTE_MAX_LCORE.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We may need to build on the native arm64 machine and use it on
>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>> arm64 machine(Just like x86).
>>>>>>>>>>> So I think, at least for default config(which will be used by
>>>>>>>>>>> distribution) to support max
>>>>>>>>>>> lcores as fixed. I am not sure this patch changes those
>>>>>>>>>>> aspects or not? Please check.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This patch does *not* affect ‘default’ build type and cross-
>> compilation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> config/get_max_lcores.py | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>> config/meson.build | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode
>>>>>>>>>>>> 100755 config/get_max_lcores.py
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/config/get_max_lcores.py
>>>>>>>>>>>> b/config/get_max_lcores.py new file mode 100755 index
>>>>>>>>>>>> 000000000000..ebf1c7efdadd
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/config/get_max_lcores.py
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>> +#!/usr/bin/python3
>>>>>>>>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause # Copyright(c) 2020
>>>>>>>>>>>> +Arm Limited
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>> +import os
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>> +max_lcores = []
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>> +nCPU = os.cpu_count()
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>> +max_lcores.append(str(nCPU & 0xFFF)) # Number of CPUs
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>> +print(' '.join(max_lcores))
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/config/meson.build b/config/meson.build index
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6996e5cbeaa5..80c05bc15d2f 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/config/meson.build
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/config/meson.build
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -237,11 +237,22 @@ else # for 32-bit we need smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>> reserved memory
>>>>>>>>>> areas
>>>>>>>>>>>> dpdk_conf.set('RTE_MAX_MEM_MB', 2048) endif
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> compile_time_cpuflags = []
>>>>>>>>>>>> subdir(arch_subdir)
>>>>>>>>>>>> dpdk_conf.set('RTE_COMPILE_TIME_CPUFLAGS',
>>>>>>>>>>>> ','.join(compile_time_cpuflags))
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +# set max lcores
>>>>>>>>>>>> +if machine != 'default' and not meson.is_cross_build()
>>>>>>>>>>>> + # The script returns max lcores
>>>>>>>>>>>> + params = files('get_max_lcores.py')
>>>>>>>>>>>> + cmd_out = run_command(params)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you considered running just a shell command, such as "nproc --
>> all"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this really a good idea?
>>>>>>>> For real distributions and NFV products, the build and runtime
>>>>>>>> environment will usually be different even if on same CPU architecture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In many cases there maybe a huge build machine (128 CPU) or in a
>>>>>>>> container (reported as single cpu) even if not doing cross build.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That’s a great point, Stephen. IMO, this patch is useful when
>>>>>>> building and running natively.
>>>>>>> For all other purposes (like the ones you mentioned), do you think
>>>>>>> it is a good idea to set RTE_MAX_LCORE using -Dmax_lcores?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should only use this native builds, as that would be consistent
>>>>>> with the
>>>> current meson build philosophy of "meson figuring as much as possible
>>>> on its own". Any build other than native implies the user wants to
>>>> deviate from the build machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The MIDR value-based probing doesn’t quite work well for Arm IP
>>>>> (currently
>>>> being discussed on this patch: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/76981/).
>>>>>
>>>>>> One way to do this automatic core count is when max_lcores=0 (0
>>>>>> would
>>>> have the special meaning of "figure core count automatically"). We
>>>> can set that as default in meson_option.txt and then users will have
>>>> the ability to set it to whatever they want, even for native builds. What
>>>> do
>> you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently the -Dmax_lcores option doesn't work for arm builds (the
>>>>>> value of
>>>> RTE_MAX_LCORE is overwritten in config/arm/meson.build). I believe
>>>> the patch tries to address this, but still, we need to be mindful of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juraj
