On 2 Apr 2026, at 16:47, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> On 4/2/26 3:42 PM, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2 Apr 2026, at 14:38, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/2/26 12:10 PM, Eelco Chaudron via dev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 13 Mar 2026, at 21:50, Timothy Redaelli via dev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When --format json is passed to ovs-appctl, pmd-sleep-show returns a
>>>>> JSON object with the default_max_sleep_us field and a 'pmds' array.
>>>>> Each element in the array has numa_id, core_id and max_sleep_us fields
>>>>> for the PMD thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example output:
>>>>> {"default_max_sleep_us":100,
>>>>> "pmds":[{"core_id":0,"max_sleep_us":100,"numa_id":0}]}
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Timothy Redaelli <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Timothy,
>>>>
>>>> For this patch, please index the PMDs by their core_id rather than using
>>>> an array. This allows direct lookup and is consistent with the approach
>>>> used for revalidators in patch 2. Here's the suggested structure:
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>> "default_max_sleep_us": 100,
>>>> "pmds": {
>>>
>>> "pmds" is generally not a good term, should probably just be "threads".
>>
>> You're right, its the core_id value, so cores might be better?
>
> Doesn't sounds great. One other idea I was thinking, is we could put the
> thread name as a key, like we actually name them, e.g.:
>
> "threads":
> "pmd-c02/id:XXX": {
> "core": 2,
> "numa": 1,
> ...
> }
>
> This is the name that you see in the output of "top" for example.
I like this! So I guess the same for the other patch.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
