[PATCH] usertools: suggest use of hwloc for new cpu

[Bruce Richardson]

On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 08:52:01AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 02:12:03 +0000
> "Varghese, Vipin" <Vipin.Varghese at amd.com> wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 06:27:20 +0530
> > > Vipin Varghese <vipin.varghese at amd.com> wrote:
> > >  
> > > > Most modern processor now supports numa by partitioning NUMA based on
> > > > CPU-IO & Last Level Cache within the same socket.
> > > > As per the discussion in mailing list, suggesting the make use of
> > > > hw-loc for such scenarios.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vipin Varghese <vipin.varghese at amd.com>  
> > >
> > > NAK, no scripting hwloc, it is ugly and creates a dependency that is not listed
> > > in DPDK packaging.  
> > 
> > There is no calls to hwloc within in thescript. Hence not clear what does ` NAK, no scripting hwloc it is ugly and creates a dependency that is not listed in DPDK packaging.`.
> > 
> > Requesting to cross check why NAK is shared for `print` as suggestion. Hence, I have disagree to this.
> 
> Sorry, I misinterpreted what the print's were doing.
> Better off not to list exact flags, the lstopo may change and user may want different
> format anyway.
> 
> How about something like this?
> 
> 
>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++
>  usertools/cpu_layout.py              | 5 +++++
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index 317875c5054b..25a116900dfb 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -185,3 +185,8 @@ Deprecation Notices
>    will be deprecated and subsequently removed in DPDK 24.11 release.
>    Before this, the new port library API (functions rte_swx_port_*)
>    will gradually transition from experimental to stable status.
> +
> +* cpulayout: The CPU layout script is unable to deal with all the possible
> +  complexities of modern CPU topology. Other existing tools offer more
> +  features and do a better job with keeping up with innovations.
> +  Therefore it will be deprecated and removed in a future release.

Does the script really do that bad a job? While I can understand us looking
to recommend alternatives, I actually find the script in it's current form
really handy - much more so than working out the exact flags for lstopo
etc. Since it's not a large maintenance burden, I'd request we keep it
around - while still recommending lstopo to users.

/Bruce