> On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 08:52:01AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 02:12:03 +0000 > > "Varghese, Vipin" <vipin.vargh...@amd.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 06:27:20 +0530 > > > > Vipin Varghese <vipin.vargh...@amd.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Most modern processor now supports numa by partitioning NUMA based on > > > > > CPU-IO & Last Level Cache within the same socket. > > > > > As per the discussion in mailing list, suggesting the make use of > > > > > hw-loc for such scenarios. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vipin Varghese <vipin.vargh...@amd.com> > > > > > > > > NAK, no scripting hwloc, it is ugly and creates a dependency that is > > > > not listed > > > > in DPDK packaging. > > > > > > There is no calls to hwloc within in thescript. Hence not clear what does > > > ` NAK, no scripting hwloc it is ugly and creates a > dependency that is not listed in DPDK packaging.`. > > > > > > Requesting to cross check why NAK is shared for `print` as suggestion. > > > Hence, I have disagree to this. > > > > Sorry, I misinterpreted what the print's were doing. > > Better off not to list exact flags, the lstopo may change and user may want > > different > > format anyway. > > > > How about something like this? > > > > > > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++ > > usertools/cpu_layout.py | 5 +++++ > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > index 317875c5054b..25a116900dfb 100644 > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > @@ -185,3 +185,8 @@ Deprecation Notices > > will be deprecated and subsequently removed in DPDK 24.11 release. > > Before this, the new port library API (functions rte_swx_port_*) > > will gradually transition from experimental to stable status. > > + > > +* cpulayout: The CPU layout script is unable to deal with all the possible > > + complexities of modern CPU topology. Other existing tools offer more > > + features and do a better job with keeping up with innovations. > > + Therefore it will be deprecated and removed in a future release. > > Does the script really do that bad a job? While I can understand us looking > to recommend alternatives, I actually find the script in it's current form > really handy - much more so than working out the exact flags for lstopo > etc. Since it's not a large maintenance burden, I'd request we keep it > around - while still recommending lstopo to users.
+1 I do use it on regular basis. It would be a pity if it will be gone. Konstantin
