> -----Original Message----- > From: Zoltan Kiss [mailto:zoltan.k...@linaro.org] > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 6:56 PM > To: Traynor, Kevin; Aaron Conole > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] INSTALL.DPDK.md: Clarify DPDK arguments. > > Hi, > > On 15/12/15 14:50, Traynor, Kevin wrote: > >> Seems good, assuming that the thread affinity at the time dpdk_init() > >> >was called reflects what cores are allowed for non-PMD threads. And what > >> >if the user wants to change that later? > > Hi - not sure what you mean by "allowed for non-PMD threads". Is there an > example? > > I don't know how OVS determines the cores where non-PMD threads should > run. I guess the most basic requirement is that they should NOT be on > the PMD cores, if possible.
Hi Zoltan, sorry for the delayed response. yeah, at present it's just based on the -c. So the user will have knowledge of what is being used for pmd and non-pmd. Ideally, we can start to create defaults where that knowledge is not needed. > But then, you revert the affinity changes made by rte_eal_init(), so the > only thing we set with the -c value is the lcore_id of the calling > thread. I guess that doesn't have too much relevance. Or is there any > case where the affinity of the non-PMD thread (which calls > rte_eal_init()), changes, and lcore_id should follow that? That's an interesting point - if the affinity floated across non-isolcpu'd cores, it would be fine. If someone explicitly taskset it then I think we may need to add a few LOC to account for that. It should be straightforward to catch though. > > Zoli _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
