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

[Konstantin Ananyev]

> 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.

+1
I do use it on regular basis.
It would be a pity if it will be gone.
Konstantin