Vladimir Smirnov

Hm... There should've been 0.16.1 in stable, but I guess my autoclean script removed it by mistake... Well, I think 0.17.0 is coming anyway soon, so I won't bother rebuilding...

Also #831 should update protobuf to 1.33.0 as part of huge vendored dependencies update.

As far as I understand - no, we still don't. It just should increase probability of persistently hitting different cores (in random order). Currently it's extremely likely to hit same...

Actually according to the https://eclecticlight.co/2022/01/25/scheduling-of-threads-on-m1-series-chips-second-draft/ It is somewhat known how current versions of OSX do the scheduling, again - no guarantees that it won't change in future.

There is alternative approach - for my setup it would be enough to still keep 128 cores, and dpdk support custom mapping (you can map your real thread ids to...

> Does it really work with more than 31 cores? Based on the issue you've mentioned it shouldn't work with amount of cores equivalent to 32 because validation function is...

> I could be wrong of course, would be good to learn and understand how it works for you. Honestly I'll need to have a closer look at what they...

Alternatively same information should be obtained from ``` /sys/devices/system/node/ ```

It is actually more weird, my topology is: ``` +----+------+---------+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+ | ID | NUMA | PCI | MAC | Name | Driver | Linux IF | Active | +====+======+=========+===================+=================================================================+===========+===========+==========+ |...

Found the problem: ``` # grep -c processor /proc/cpuinfo 240 ``` And: https://github.com/cisco-system-traffic-generator/trex-core/blob/master/scripts/dpdk_setup_ports.py#L65-L68 I'm not sure why the limit is there, but I remove it - I can generate a...