在 2021/3/25 15:45, Ruifeng Wang 写道:
-----Original Message----- From: oulijun oulijun@huawei.com Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 3:22 PM To: Ruifeng Wang Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com; thomas@monjalon.net; ferruh.yigit@intel.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org; linuxarm@openeuler.org; nd nd@arm.com Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH V2 1/4] config/arm: add Hisilicon kunpeng920 implementer
在 2021/3/23 23:40, Ruifeng Wang 写道:
-----Original Message----- From: oulijun oulijun@huawei.com Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:52 PM To: Ruifeng Wang Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com; thomas@monjalon.net; ferruh.yigit@intel.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org; linuxarm@openeuler.org; nd nd@arm.com Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH V2 1/4] config/arm: add Hisilicon kunpeng920 implementer
2021/3/23 16:07, Ruifeng Wang д :-----Original Message----- From: dev dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Behalf Of Lijun Ou Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:36 AM To: thomas@monjalon.net; ferruh.yigit@intel.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org; linuxarm@openeuler.org Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH V2 1/4] config/arm: add Hisilicon kunpeng920 implementer
Here addes Kunpeng920 config back which was deleted.
There was no Kunpeng920 specific config before change 91c730fd4e09. It would fall back to generic build because the behavior was to do generic build for unknown implementor / part number.
What should we do with this patch? This is because we cannot compile on the Kunpeng 920 server without adding generic build.
Fixes: 91c730fd4e09 ("config/arm: remove unused or superfluous variables")
Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang tangchengchang@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou oulijun@huawei.com
V1->V2:
- rewrite patch title.
- split the patch into two.
config/arm/meson.build | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)diff --git a/config/arm/meson.build b/config/arm/meson.build index 00bc461..3826900 100644 --- a/config/arm/meson.build +++ b/config/arm/meson.build @@ -133,6 +133,25 @@ implementer_cavium = { } }
+implementer_hisilicon = {
- 'description': 'Hisilicon',
- 'flags': [
['RTE_USE_C11_MEM_MODEL', true],['RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE', 128],Just want to double check. One Kunpeng920 box I can access have cache line size 64B.
I have a question, which level does RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE refer to? For kunpeng920, L1/L2 cache size is 64B L3 is 128B
Got it. I think RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE is not defined for a certain level of cache. Data can be prefetched into any level of cache by using different APIs.
So our current configuration should be fine.
Agree.
Thanks.
['RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES', 4]- ],
- 'part_number_config': {
'0xd01': {'machine_args': ['-march=armv8.2-a+crypto','-mtune=tsv110'],'flag': [['RTE_MACHINE', '"kunpeng920"'],['RTE_MAX_LCORE', 128],['RTE_ARM_FEATURE_ATOMICS', true]]}- }
+}
- implementer_ampere = { 'description': 'Ampere Computing', 'flags': [
@@ -190,6 +209,7 @@ implementers = { 'generic': implementer_generic, '0x41': implementer_arm, '0x43': implementer_cavium,
- '0x48': implementer_hisilicon, '0x50': implementer_ampere, '0x51': implementer_qualcomm, '0x56': implementer_marvell,
-- 2.7.4
.