[Public] Sudhhendra and myself were able to connect over Slack. Adding his email address to the loop of reply .
Sudhendra please check the reply posted below > -----Original Message----- > From: Varghese, Vipin <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:50 PM > To: [email protected]; Tummala, Sivaprasad <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 v5 2/3] app: add topology aware test case > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > [Public] > > <snipped> > > > > Unable to find `Sudheendra Sampath` in dpdk mailing list and Slack. > > Can you please connect with me email address or slack. > > Hi Sudheendra, > > Thank you for the suggestion and welcome to dpdk review too. > > My initial code design were > > ``` > #ifdef RTE_LIBHWLOC_PROBE > +static int > +get_same_domains(struct lcore_pair *lcp, uint32_t domain_sel) { > + if (rte_topo_get_domain_count(domain_sel) == 0) > + return 1; > + > + unsigned int id1 = RTE_MAX_LCORE, id2 = RTE_MAX_LCORE; > + unsigned int domain = 0; > + > + RTE_TOPO_FOREACH_DOMAIN(domain, domain_sel) { > + if ((id1 != RTE_MAX_LCORE) && (id2 != RTE_MAX_LCORE)) > + break; > + > + if (rte_topo_get_lcore_count_from_domain(domain_sel, domain) > < 2) > + continue; > + > + id1 = rte_topo_get_nth_lcore_from_domain(domain, 0, 0, > domain_sel); > + id2 = rte_topo_get_nth_lcore_from_domain(domain, 1, 0, > domain_sel); > + } > + > + if ((id1 == RTE_MAX_LCORE) || (id2 == RTE_MAX_LCORE)) > + return 2; > + > + if (id1 == id2) > + return 3; > + > + lcp->c1 = id1; > + lcp->c2 = id2; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int > +get_two_domains(struct lcore_pair *lcp, uint32_t domain_sel) { > + if (rte_topo_get_domain_count(domain_sel) < 2) > + return 1; > + > + unsigned int id1 = RTE_MAX_LCORE, id2 = RTE_MAX_LCORE; > + unsigned int domain = 0; > + > + RTE_TOPO_FOREACH_DOMAIN(domain, domain_sel) { > + if ((id1 != RTE_MAX_LCORE) && (id2 != RTE_MAX_LCORE)) > + break; > + > + if (rte_topo_get_lcore_count_from_domain(domain_sel, domain) > == 0) > + continue; > + > + if (id1 == RTE_MAX_LCORE) { > + id1 = rte_topo_get_nth_lcore_from_domain(domain, > + 0, 0, domain_sel); > + continue; > + } > + if (id2 == RTE_MAX_LCORE) { > + id2 = rte_topo_get_nth_lcore_from_domain(domain, > + 0, 0, domain_sel); > + continue; > + } > + } > + > + if ((id1 == RTE_MAX_LCORE) || (id2 == RTE_MAX_LCORE)) > + return 2; > + > + if (id1 == id2) > + return 3; > + > + lcp->c1 = id1; > + lcp->c2 = id2; > + > + return 0; > +} > +#endif > + > /* Get cycle counts for dequeuing from an empty ring. Should be 2 or 3 > cycles */ > static void test_empty_dequeue(struct rte_ring *r, const int esize, @@ -488,6 > +574,33 @@ test_ring_perf_esize_run_on_two_cores( > if (run_on_core_pair(&cores, param1, param2) < 0) > return -1; > } > +#ifdef RTE_LIBHWLOC_PROBE > + if (rte_lcore_count() > 2) { > + for (uint32_t d = 0; d < RTE_DIM(domain_types); d++) { > + if (get_same_domains(&cores, domain_types[d]) == 0) { > + printf("\n### Testing using same %s domain > nodes ###\n", > + (domain_types[d] == > RTE_TOPO_DOMAIN_NUMA) ? > "NUMA" : > + (domain_types[d] == > RTE_TOPO_DOMAIN_L4) ? "L4" : > + (domain_types[d] == > RTE_TOPO_DOMAIN_L3) ? "L3" : > + (domain_types[d] == > RTE_TOPO_DOMAIN_L2) ? "L2" : > + (domain_types[d] == > RTE_TOPO_DOMAIN_L1) ? "L1" : > NULL); > + if (run_on_core_pair(&cores, param1, param2) > < 0) > + return -1; > + } > + > + if (get_two_domains(&cores, domain_types[d]) == 0) { > + printf("\n### Testing using two %s domain > nodes ###\n", > + (domain_types[d] == > RTE_TOPO_DOMAIN_NUMA) ? > "NUMA" : > + (domain_types[d] == > RTE_TOPO_DOMAIN_L4) ? "L4" : > + (domain_types[d] == > RTE_TOPO_DOMAIN_L3) ? "L3" : > + (domain_types[d] == > RTE_TOPO_DOMAIN_L2) ? "L2" : > + (domain_types[d] == > RTE_TOPO_DOMAIN_L1) ? "L1" : > NULL); > + if (run_on_core_pair(&cores, param1, param2) > < 0) > + return -1; > + } > + } > + } > +#endif > return 0; > } > > ``` > > Since it breaks the current function test format, I went ahead with current > approach. > I will re-introduce the domain iterator design in v6 for you. Please try it > out and let me > know. > > Regards > Vipin Varghese
