On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 16:30 +0000, Song, Keesang wrote: > [AMD Public Use] > > Hi Kevin and Luca, > > We are still waiting for the response. > Can you help on this for the backports in 18.11 and 19.11? > It would work for our customers even with changing the default value of ' > CONFIG_RTE_MAX_LCORE' to 256 in common_base file in 18.11 and 19.11. > > Thanks, > Keesang
How to send patches for inclusion in LTS releases if not already backported is documented here: https://core.dpdk.org/contribute/#send If you do the work to backport and test, on the surface it seems fine to have those in 19.11.4 > -----Original Message----- > From: Song, Keesang > Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 3:54 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Cc: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > acon...@redhat.com; ferruh.yi...@intel.com; bl...@debian.org; > ktray...@redhat.com; bruce.richard...@intel.com; > honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com; d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; sta...@dpdk.org; Aman > Kumar <aman.ku...@vvdntech.in>; Grimm, Jon <jon.gr...@amd.com> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Extend --lcores to run on cores > > RTE_MAX_LCORE > > [AMD Public Use] > > Thanks Thomas for the response. > For a correction, the patchwork has not been submitted for the current LTS > release, 19.11.2, but was merged into 20.02 and onward. > The reason I brought this again was to address LTS users and many other > application based on the LTS releases(18.11 & 19.11). > Since I found many of our customers and users are still relying on the latest > LTS version, I'm seeking an aid for adding this change into at least 19.11, > LTS branch. > We could argue that this is actually not a bug, in a way, it's inconvenient > for Openstack or cloud deployed DPDK application since it's often inapt to > change the base config and recompile the max lcore limit. > If backporting is still not a preferred way(pushing this patchwork into > 19.11), then can we instead consider changing only the default value of ' > CONFIG_RTE_MAX_LCORE' to 256 in common_base file? > > # Compile Environment Abstraction Layer > # > CONFIG_RTE_MAX_LCORE=128 --> 256 > > I'd appreciate if anyone can advise me know what we can do about this to move > forward. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 2:23 PM > To: Song, Keesang <keesang.s...@amd.com> > Cc: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > acon...@redhat.com; ferruh.yi...@intel.com; bl...@debian.org; > ktray...@redhat.com; bruce.richard...@intel.com; > honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com; d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; sta...@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Extend --lcores to run on cores > > RTE_MAX_LCORE > > [CAUTION: External Email] > > 29/05/2020 05:05, Song, Keesang: > > Hi Thomas & David, > > > > We haven't got the final status on this patch, and I don't see this change > > even from the latest LTS 20.04 repo. > > So I'd like to confirm whether this patch has been safely submitted to the > > main upstream. > > Can you check the status of that commit? > > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatc > > hwork.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F63507%2F&data=02%7C01%7CKeesang.Song%40am > > d.com%7Cd71ea9aca917447dfb3e08d80671f34c%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994 > > e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637266433776198364&sdata=1EgxevCILVMMLgyQC%2FzaWYJ > > XJ%2BOijs0Rtym1TA0VS28%3D&reserved=0 > > As you can see below, there is a pending question: > "is it a new feature or a fix?" > > Kevin and Luca are the arbiters for the backports in 18.11 and 19.11. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 12:04 AM > > > > Hi, > > > > 21/01/2020 01:24, Thomas Monjalon: > > > 02/12/2019 16:35, David Marchand: > > > > We are currently stuck with no option but recompile a DPDK if the > > > > system has more cores than RTE_MAX_LCORE. > > > > A bit of a pity when you get a system with more than 200+ cores > > > > and your testpmd has been built and packaged with RTE_MAX_LCORE == 128. > > > > > > > > The --lcores does not need to care about the underlying cores, > > > > remove this limitation. > > > > David Marchand (4): > > > > eal/windows: fix cpuset macro name > > > > eal: do not cache lcore detection state > > > > eal: display all detected cores at startup > > > > eal: remove limitation on cpuset with --lcores > > > > > > The patches look good but it is very hard to review parsing code (last > > > patch). > > > We will better experience corner cases after merging. > > > > > > Applied for -rc1, thanks > > > > This patch was merged in 20.02. > > We don't have any feedback about issues so it's probably working fine. > > > > It is solving a problem for running DPDK on machines having a lot of cores. > > Now the difficult question: is it a new feature or a fix? > > Should we backport this patchset?
