[dpdk-dev] Minimun value of RTE_MAX_LCORE

[Honnappa Nagarahalli]

<snip>

> >
> > On 15/10/20 10:49 +0000, Juraj Linkeš wrote:
> > > Hi dpdk devs,
> > >
> > > Is there a constraint on how low RTE_MAX_LCORE can be? I'm
> > > implementing a
> > discovery mechanism that sets RTE_MAX_LCORE according to the number
> of
> > host cores, but I'm hitting errors when the values are low:
> > > https://travis-ci.com/github/jlinkes/dpdk/jobs/399596828
> > > Message: Found 2
> > > cores
> > > Message: Found 1
> > > numa nodes
> > >
> > > ../app/test/test_rcu_qsbr.c:296:54: error: iteration 2 invokes
> > > undefined behavior [-Werror=aggressive-loop-optimizations]
> > >
> > > ../app/test/test_rcu_qsbr.c:315:55: error: array subscript is above
> > > array bounds [-Werror=array-bounds]
> > >
> > > All VM jobs failed in that Travis build. Travis VMs only have 2
> > > cores, so I tried to
> > put a bound on the build. I set it to 4 and all jobs except GCC shared
> > lib jobs passed, which still threw iteration 4 invokes undefined behavior
> error:
> > > https://travis-ci.com/github/jlinkes/dpdk/jobs/400004089
> > >
> > > ../examples/performance-thread/l3fwd-thread/main.c:2338:34: error:
> > > iteration 4 invokes undefined behavior
> > > [-Werror=aggressive-loop-optimizations]
> > >
> > > This happens for number of cores < 32 and looks like a limitation
> > > unique to
> > l3fwd (with cores between 4 and 32 - I didn't see the error elsewhere).
> > >
> > > Should I use the bound or are these legitimate errors? The fact that
> > > only GCC
> > (and not clang) shared lib jobs failed is also suspicious.
2 would be the minimum (one for main and one for worker), not less than that. Please check [1], I have fixed both of them.

[1] https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/81028/

> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Juraj
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I can see a CPU config setting it to 4, so it might be a valid value.
> > Not sure it would be the lower bound though.
> >
> > However, I think the issue you get here shows why your discovery
> > mechanism is not great.  Most of the time, DPDK applications are not
> > built on their target
> > machine: either due to CI (like your issue), automatic packaging,
> > cross- compilation for smartNIC, etc.
> >
> 
> It's not supposed to be great, just be a more sensible default for native
> builds. Users can still specify the cores on the command line if they like. Or do
> the default build (which will use predefined values).
> 
> > Platforms that would benefit from your discovery mechanism will define
> > RTE_MAX_LCORE explicitly, e.g. in config/arm/meson.build, line 34 and
> further.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean. If they define it explicitly, then they can't
> benefit from the discoreved values. What we're exploring is using the
> discovered values for native builds and moving the statically defined
> RTE_MAX_LCORE and RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES to cross files. Then we'll
> have native builds which better match the build machine and if anyone wants
> the target to be a particular SoC, they can use a cross file.
Agree. I think there is enough flexibility provided for different use cases.

> 
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Gaëtan