> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Conole > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 1:28 PM > To: Qiu, Michael > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org; Flavio Leitner; Zoltan Kiss > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 3/3] netdev-dpdk: Autofill lcore coremask if > absent > > "Qiu, Michael" <michael....@intel.com> writes: > > On 1/14/2016 5:18 AM, Aaron Conole wrote: > >> The user has control over the DPDK internal lcore coremask, but this > >> parameter can be autofilled with a bit more intelligence. If the user > >> does not fill this parameter in, we use the lowest set bit in the > >> current task CPU affinity. Otherwise, we will reassign the current > >> thread to the specified lcore mask, in addition to the dpdk lcore > >> threads. > > > > It's not a good idea to use the lowest set bit in the current task CPU > > affinity, > > > > I think numa info should be considered as the NIC could belongs to > > different Socket. > > > > If remote socket, it will lead bad performance. > > I agree with your concerns, but they are tuning and optimization. The > point of defaults is to get something up and running "good enough." > Without an auto-assigned coremask, the user is forced to pick one and > that is something of an inconvenience just to try out DPDK. So we have a > default mechanism in place to tide over the user. > > This default exists to handle the case where the user does not tune > appropriately to their system. See > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-December/063626.html for some > additonal context. Also keep in mind, this is solely for the lcore > threads - PMD threads have their own CPU mask.
+1 > > > Thanks, > > Michael > > Thanks for the review, Michael! > > -Aaron > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openvswitch.org > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
