From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18EAA04F9; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:11:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031171EA36; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:11:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF6F1EA35 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:11:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9401121E3E; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:11:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:11:33 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=d2quIr5K5MpEoU3++MENTrDyL8cSIItof1NPOwbZx4U=; b=K7revI1BbIUl kKjDP+tVoVEntldaTPh0yXBDW4yLGXdk6lWgyn87gnUNsu9ypaT4xda7v9sc8qpW UFFqpqg+BK7Ev8oR95F22L88KtnHi7RGDunvkx5A1NcYWPK08ZBKPVEqp6CqaUQK 7a58neDlctNxGa7bgZCSJSE0D5PM/bI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=d2quIr5K5MpEoU3++MENTrDyL8cSIItof1NPOwbZx 4U=; b=ijraVSN2g/tIufOddGfELLkN+ZmOm/gorK7MGP9BeYtV4g3nySig/qMMw cnvyznuvFlzOFyC/wNLMTC+8eyfl6XYJZE89IFpiP1OMwBUxYc95Eo4T7Jyri9+N grRjHxmPMjd+Gka6F1tn/XhRIbhXknagJzCvo2AF3k8ESkSW/epZFIBZCTtmmtz1 CAGVk+ut6wYp5ympuOzSbISGbhZiqLVvL7tTY4+qLFzoz1TX4LQHdiqL0dEEdIZT UT27Nc2ffkr6tqDbIDfBcIpcUykCwbjecxkTb387LeBDvZNm03yixTx3IezTANTr sWVLT4482csWjmuDsM0xH/t+sEgsQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvdeifedggeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 06A308005A; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:11:31 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Slava Ovsiienko Cc: Ferruh Yigit , "dev@dpdk.org" , Matan Azrad , Raslan Darawsheh , Ori Kam Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:11:29 +0100 Message-ID: <13971515.JCcGWNJJiE@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1578500161-20156-1-git-send-email-viacheslavo@mellanox.com> <3418044.RUnXabflUD@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] net/mlx5: engage free on completion queue X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 10/01/2020 10:55, Slava Ovsiienko: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 10/01/2020 10:28, Slava Ovsiienko: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > > 09/01/2020 17:22, Slava Ovsiienko: > > > > > From: Ferruh Yigit > > > > > > On 1/9/2020 3:27 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote: > > > > > > > From: Ferruh Yigit > > > > > > >> On 1/9/2020 10:56 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote: > > > > > > >>> + assert(ci != txq->cq_pi); > > > > > > >>> + assert((txq->fcqs[ci & txq->cqe_m] >> 16) == cqe- > > > > > > >>> wqe_counter); > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> And same comments on these as previous patches, we spend some > > > > > > >> effort to remove the 'rte_panic' from drivers, this is almost same > > thing. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I think a driver shouldn't decide to exit whole application, > > > > > > >> it's effect should be limited to the driver. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Assert is useful for debug and during development, but not > > > > > > >> sure having them in the production code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, "assert" is standard C function. Compiled only if there > > > > > > > is no NDEBUG > > > > > > defined. > > > > > > > So, assert does exactly what you are saying - provide the > > > > > > > debug break not allowing the bug to evolve. And no this break > > > > > > > in production > > > > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since mlx driver is using NDEBUG defined, what you said is right > > > > > > indeed. But why not using RTE_ASSERT to be consistent with rest. > > > > > > There is a specific config option to control assert > > > > > > (RTE_ENABLE_ASSERT) and anyone using it will get different > > > > > > behavior with > > > > mlx5. > > > > > > > > > > We have the dedicated option to control mlx5 debug: > > > > > CONFIG_RTE_ENABLE_ASSERT controls the whole DPDK. > > > > > > > > No, it controls the whole DPDK except mlx PMDs. > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MLX5_DEBUG controls NDEBUG for mlx5 > > > > > > > > > > From my practice - I switch the mlx5 debug option (in the process > > > > > of the debugging/testing datapath and checking the resulting > > > > > performance, by directly defining NDEBUG in mlx5.h and not > > > > > reconfiguring/rebuilding the > > > > entire DPDK), this fine grained option seems to be useful. > > > > > > > > I don't like having mlx PMDs behave differently. > > > > It make things difficult for newcomers. > > > > And with meson, such options are cleaned up. > > > > > > Do you mean we should eliminate NDEBUG usage and convert it to some > > explicit "MLX5_NDEBUG" > > > (and convert "assert" to "MLX5_ASSERT") ? > > > > I mean we should use RTE_ASSERT in mlx5, as it is already done in some files. > > > This would make not possible to engage asserts in mlx5 module only. > It is a question of structuring/layering, not "different behavior". > As for me - it is very nice to have fine grained debug control option, > and I use this feature actively, it just saves my time. Also, it seems > these options are implemented in many other PMDs > (with its own xxx_ASSERTs). I disagree, it is not nice. It makes it more complicate to use. Can you imagine every file having its own tools and configs in a project? As a maintainer, my role is to make things simpler for everyone in general so we can know easily how things work. About time saving, I also disagree. If you enable assert for the whole project during all your development, it is a good practice which does not cost any time. About other PMDs, they must be fixed.