[AMD Official Use Only - AMD Internal Distribution Only] <snipped>
> > <snipped> > > > > Thank you Mattias for the comments and question, please let me try to > > explain the same below > > > >> We shouldn't have a separate CPU/cache hierarchy API instead? > > > > Based on the intention to bring in CPU lcores which share same L3 (for > > better cache hits and less noisy neighbor) current API focuses on > > using > > > > Last Level Cache. But if the suggestion is `there are SoC where L2 > > cache are also shared, and the new API should be provisioned`, I am > > also > > > > comfortable with the thought. > > > > Rather than some AMD special case API hacked into <rte_lcore.h>, I think we > are better off with no DPDK API at all for this kind of functionality. Hi Mattias, as shared in the earlier email thread, this is not a AMD special case at all. Let me try to explain this one more time. One of techniques used to increase cores cost effective way to go for tiles of compute complexes. This introduces a bunch of cores in sharing same Last Level Cache (namely L2, L3 or even L4) depending upon cache topology architecture. The API suggested in RFC is to help end users to selectively use cores under same Last Level Cache Hierarchy as advertised by OS (irrespective of the BIOS settings used). This is useful in both bare-metal and container environment. As shared in response for cover letter +1 to expand it to more than just LLC cores. We have also confirmed the same to https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/cover/20240827151014.201-1-vipin.vargh...@amd.com/ > > A DPDK CPU/memory hierarchy topology API very much makes sense, but it > should be reasonably generic and complete from the start. > > >> > >> Could potentially be built on the 'hwloc' library. > > > > There are 3 reason on AMD SoC we did not explore this path, reasons > > are > > > > 1. depending n hwloc version and kernel version certain SoC > > hierarchies are not available > > > > 2. CPU NUMA and IO (memory & PCIe) NUMA are independent on AMD > Epyc Soc. > > > > 3. adds the extra dependency layer of library layer to be made > > available to work. > > > > > > hence we have tried to use Linux Documented generic layer of `sysfs > > CPU cache`. > > > > I will try to explore more on hwloc and check if other libraries > > within DPDK leverages the same. > > > >> > >> I much agree cache/core topology may be of interest of the > >> application (or a work scheduler, like a DPDK event device), but it's > >> not limited to LLC. It may well be worthwhile to care about which > >> cores shares L2 cache, for example. Not sure the RTE_LCORE_FOREACH_* > approach scales. > > > > yes, totally understand as some SoC, multiple lcores shares same L2 cache. > > > > > > Can we rework the API to be rte_get_cache_<function> where user > > argument is desired lcore index. > > > > 1. index-1: SMT threads > > > > 2. index-2: threads sharing same L2 cache > > > > 3. index-3: threads sharing same L3 cache > > > > 4. index-MAX: identify the threads sharing last level cache. > > > >> > >>> < Function: Purpose > > >>> --------------------- > >>> - rte_get_llc_first_lcores: Retrieves all the first lcores in the > >>> shared LLC. > >>> - rte_get_llc_lcore: Retrieves all lcores that share the LLC. > >>> - rte_get_llc_n_lcore: Retrieves the first n or skips the first n > >>> lcores in the shared LLC. > >>> > >>> < MACRO: Purpose > > >>> ------------------ > >>> RTE_LCORE_FOREACH_LLC_FIRST: iterates through all first lcore from > >>> each LLC. > >>> RTE_LCORE_FOREACH_LLC_FIRST_WORKER: iterates through all first > >>> worker lcore from each LLC. > >>> RTE_LCORE_FOREACH_LLC_WORKER: iterates lcores from LLC based on > hint > >>> (lcore id). > >>> RTE_LCORE_FOREACH_LLC_SKIP_FIRST_WORKER: iterates lcores from LLC > >>> while skipping first worker. > >>> RTE_LCORE_FOREACH_LLC_FIRST_N_WORKER: iterates through `n` lcores > >>> from each LLC. > >>> RTE_LCORE_FOREACH_LLC_SKIP_N_WORKER: skip first `n` lcores, then > >>> iterates through reaming lcores in each LLC. > >>> > > While the MACRO are simple wrapper invoking appropriate API. can this > > be worked out in this fashion? > > > > <snipped>
