From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B70A0AC5 for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 05:07:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5720AB62; Thu, 2 May 2019 05:07:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga07-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.35]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6CF4374 for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 05:07:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from DGGEMS407-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 6B9C286B0B20DA60184B for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 11:07:08 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.177.131.206) by DGGEMS407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.207) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 2 May 2019 11:07:02 +0800 To: "Burakov, Anatoly" , CC: References: <1556595548-53745-1-git-send-email-mousuanming@huawei.com> <1556624124-54930-1-git-send-email-mousuanming@huawei.com> <1556624124-54930-2-git-send-email-mousuanming@huawei.com> <655f3c30-b277-fad7-6a68-64dd70fd3601@intel.com> <49788495-9412-972b-5500-9ff48b36eafe@huawei.com> <491c12ba-2cd8-e1bd-6622-0549439ecbc8@intel.com> From: Suanming.Mou Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 11:07:00 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <491c12ba-2cd8-e1bd-6622-0549439ecbc8@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.177.131.206] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] app/pdump: add pudmp exits with primary support. 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" Message-ID: <20190502030700.e7TRmRyfklhIK7ynT702d109ddG6G3TpikOtAdvV2u8@z> On 2019/5/1 0:39, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 30-Apr-19 12:25 PM, Suanming.Mou wrote: >> >> On 2019/4/30 17:42, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >>> On 30-Apr-19 12:35 PM, Suanming.Mou wrote: >>>> When primary app exits, the residual running pdump will stop the >>>> primary app to restart. Add pdump exits with primary support. >>>> >>>> Suggested-by: Varghese, Vipin >>>> Suggested-by: Burakov, Anatoly >>>> Signed-off-by: Suanming.Mou >>>> --- >>> >>> >>> >>>>   static void >>>> +disable_primary_monitor(void) >>>> +{ >>>> +    int ret; >>>> + >>>> +    /* Don't worry about it is primary exit case. The alarm cancel >>>> +     * function will take care about that. */ >>>> +    ret = rte_eal_alarm_cancel(monitor_primary, NULL); >>>> +    if (ret < 0) >>>> +        printf("Fail to disable monitor fail:%d\n", ret); >>> >>> Double fail :) >> Ah, yes, sorry for that the code gets worse.  :( >>> >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static void >>>>   signal_handler(int sig_num) >>>>   { >>>>       if (sig_num == SIGINT) { >>>> @@ -910,6 +936,19 @@ struct parse_val { >>>>           ; >>>>   } >>>>   +static void >>>> +enable_primary_monitor(void) >>>> +{ >>>> +    int ret; >>>> + >>>> +    /* Once primary exits, so will pdump. */ >>>> +    ret = rte_eal_alarm_set(MONITOR_INTERVAL, monitor_primary, NULL); >>>> +    if (ret < 0) { >>>> +        cleanup_pdump_resources(); >>>> +        rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Fail to monitor primary:%d\n", ret); >>>> +    } >>> >>> Why is this function void, when you could've called rte_exit() in >>> the caller on failure? And why is it such a fatal error to set up >>> the timer? IMO just a warning would've been enough. >> >> Here comes with two issues: >> >> Q1. The return value of the function: >> >> A1: I'm so sorry that it does not seem to make sense to check the >> function's return value. Does it mean if we change the timer set up >> from error to warning, then we can use the return value to judge if >> need to disable the primary_monitor? >> >> Q2. The choice when rte_eal_alarm_set fail: >> >> A2: OK, agree with that. > > If this is non-fatal, no need to change anything - just print out a > warning instead of rte_exit, and no more changes needed here. Happy may day holiday! Thanks for your confirmation. > >> >>> >>>> +} >>>> + >>>>   int >>>>   main(int argc, char **argv) >>>>   { >>>> @@ -950,11 +989,13 @@ struct parse_val { >>>>               rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Invalid argument\n"); >>>>       } >>>>   -    /* create mempool, ring and vdevs info */ >>>> +    /* create mempool, ring, vdevs info and primary monitor */ >>>>       create_mp_ring_vdev(); >>>>       enable_pdump(); >>>> +    enable_primary_monitor(); >>>>       dump_packets(); >>>>   +    disable_primary_monitor(); >>>>       cleanup_pdump_resources(); >>>>       /* dump debug stats */ >>>>       print_pdump_stats(); >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >