On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:16:35PM +0100, David Hunt wrote: > On 21/9/2021 1:04 PM, David Hunt wrote: > > On 21/9/2021 12:57 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:50:14PM +0100, David Hunt wrote: > > If the user requests to use an lcore above 128 using -l, > the eal will exit with "EAL: invalid core list syntax" and > very little else useful information. > THis patch adds some extra information suggesting to use --lcores > so that physical cores above RTE_MAX_LCORE (default 128) can be > used. This is achieved by using the --lcores option by mapping > the logical cores in the application to physical cores. > There is no change in functionalty, just additional messages > suggesting how the --lcores option might be used for the supplied > list of lcores. For example, if "-l 12-16,130,132" is used, we > see the following additional output on the command line: > EAL: Error = One of the 7 cores provided exceeds RTE_MAX_LCORE (128) > EAL: Please use --lcores instead, e.g. > > Minor suggestion: it would be good to clarify how to use lcores and > what is > happening here in the example. Something like: "Please use --lcores > instead, to map lower lcore ids onto higher-numbered cores", could > help the > user understand better what is happening. > > Hi Bruce, how about: > EAL: Please use --lcores to map logical cores onto cores > > RTE_LCORE_MAX ,e.g. --lcores 0@12,1@13,2@14,3@15,4@16,5@130,6@132 > Rgds, > Dave. > > I think this should do it, as it clarifies the mapping: > > EAL: lcore 130 >= RTE_MAX_LCORE (128) > EAL: lcore 132 >= RTE_MAX_LCORE (128) > EAL: to use high physical core ids , please use --lcores to map them to > lcore ids below RTE_LCORE_MAX, e.g. '--lcores > 0@12,1@13,2@14,3@15,4@16,5@130,6@132' > Text looks good to me.
Again minor nits: I think the continued lines should be indented, and you should probably wrap immediately after the "e.g." rather than in the middle of the parameter set. /Bruce
