> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 11:46 AM
> To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; tho...@monjalon.net; Wiles, Keith <keith.wi...@intel.com>;
> Richardson,
> Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] service cores: coremask parsing
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 14:47:20 +0000
> > From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>
> > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>
> > CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "tho...@monjalon.net"
> > <tho...@monjalon.net>, "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wi...@intel.com>,
> > "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/7] service cores: coremask parsing
> >
> > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 1:46 PM
> > > To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; tho...@monjalon.net; Wiles, Keith
> > > <keith.wi...@intel.com>;
> Richardson,
> > > Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] service cores: coremask parsing
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 22:35:10 +0100
> > > > From: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>
> > > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > CC: jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com, tho...@monjalon.net,
> > > > keith.wi...@intel.com, bruce.richard...@intel.com, Harry van Haaren
> > > > <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>
> > > > Subject: [PATCH v3 3/7] service cores: coremask parsing
> > > > X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4
> > > >
> > > > Add logic for parsing a coremask from EAL, which allows
> > > > the application to be unaware of the cores being taken from
> > > > its coremask.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > > b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > > > index f470195..cee200c 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
> > > > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ const char
> > > > eal_short_options[] =
> > > > "b:" /* pci-blacklist */
> > > > "c:" /* coremask */
> > > > + "s:" /* service coremask */
> > > > "d:" /* driver */
> > > > "h" /* help */
> > > > "l:" /* corelist */
> > > > @@ -267,6 +268,73 @@ static int xdigit2val(unsigned char c)
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Missing the --help update for service coremask details.
> > >
> > > I think, EAL arguments are documented in another area of doc directory
> > > as well. Update the documents.
> >
> > Will double check / fix this. Replying here now to advance discussion below;
> >
> > > > static int
> > > > +eal_parse_service_coremask(const char *coremask)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct rte_config *cfg = rte_eal_get_configuration();
> > > > + int i, j, idx = 0;
> > > > + unsigned int count = 0;
> > > > + char c;
> > > > + int val;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (coremask == NULL)
> > > > + return -1;
> > > > + /* Remove all blank characters ahead and after .
> > > > + * Remove 0x/0X if exists.
> > > > + */
> > > > + while (isblank(*coremask))
> > > > + coremask++;
> > > > + if (coremask[0] == '0' && ((coremask[1] == 'x')
> > > > + || (coremask[1] == 'X')))
> > > > + coremask += 2;
> > > > + i = strlen(coremask);
> > > > + while ((i > 0) && isblank(coremask[i - 1]))
> > > > + i--;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (i == 0)
> > > > + return -1;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = i - 1; i >= 0 && idx < RTE_MAX_LCORE; i--) {
> > > > + c = coremask[i];
> > > > + if (isxdigit(c) == 0) {
> > > > + /* invalid characters */
> > > > + return -1;
> > > > + }
> > > > + val = xdigit2val(c);
> > > > + for (j = 0; j < BITS_PER_HEX && idx < RTE_MAX_LCORE;
> > > > + j++, idx++) {
> > > > + if ((1 << j) & val) {
> > > > + /* handle master lcore already parsed */
> > > > + uint32_t lcore = idx;
> > > > + if (master_lcore_parsed &&
> > > > + cfg->master_lcore ==
> > > > lcore)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!lcore_config[idx].detected) {
> > > > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
> > > > + "lcore %u
> > > > unavailable\n", idx);
> > > > + return -1;
> > > > + }
> > > > + lcore_config[idx].core_role =
> > > > ROLE_SERVICE;
> > >
> > > Why not to use rte_service_lcore_add(idx) here. So that in future some
> > > changes we don't need to touch this file.
> >
> > The issue here is that the hugepages memory that service-cores requires is
> > not available
> at this point. Keep in mind, the EAL parse-opts runs before almost anything
> else (makes
> sense, given we can specify e.g. --no-huge).
> >
> > Given that there is not rte_malloc() available at this point, we have a few
> > options:
> > 1) Use existing allocated mem, e.g. the lcore_config[] array as above.
> > 2) Delay the parsing of service-core mask until later. Breaks "parse ->
> > validate->
> config -> run" workflow.
> > 3) Allocate temp memory to store the service-core indexes, and later free
> > that back
> (feels hacky to me?)
> >
> > Current scheme of (1) makes the most sense to me.
>
> Yes. Make sense to keep option 1.
Great,
> One suggestion:
> There is a lot duplicate code between new eal_parse_service_coremask() and
> eal_parse_coremask() on the same file. I think, we can add a common parsing
> logic
> and on match, the actions can be invoked through function pointer which
> is passed in the parsing function.
Agreed - lets leave this cleanup of EAL to another patchset. That patchset can
consolidate the various coremask functions in EAL and other parts of DPDK (I
recall a similar comment for eventdev_pipeline sample-app).
> > > I added following code in unit testcase and I have 8 cores system. So I
> > > was expecting cores prints from "0 3 4 5 6 7" as lcore 1 and 2 will be
> > > stolen by service core. But it looks like RTE_LCORE_FOREACH not honoring
> > > previous rte_service_lcore_add() functions.
> > >
> > > testsuite_setup(void)
> > > {
> > > + int i;
> > > + rte_service_lcore_add(1);
> > > + rte_service_lcore_add(2);
> > > +
> > > + RTE_LCORE_FOREACH(i)
> > > + printf("cores %d\n", i);
> >
> >
> > Root cause found - and fixed. If you don't strongly object to
> > lcore_config[] method
> above, then I can prioritize this and try get a patchset up ASAP.
>
> Great!!
I'm working on improving one of the unit tests to launch app functions to
verify ROLE_RTE, and will post then.
Thanks for the input, -Harry
