From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18474A0A05; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:38:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9A9140EB9; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:38:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431E7140E9D for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:38:03 +0100 (CET) IronPort-SDR: 5IxZAYBvhwmyHBT90BjbweA0K8gpwIk6WKd0D4RdZrD8tGII+OC4mUIFTT2H7/wTLSiPclzAVP mpnQJ9b5/6QQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9869"; a="158857355" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,360,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="158857355" Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jan 2021 02:38:02 -0800 IronPort-SDR: GjZUGuqkC/4Do+LKbAO9Hki7cj1m9SKw3puvbZRnhhZeAb0LGTuAJ5K0xVed8d2xRcR3N3pvDL G5uIWGCMW4cg== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,360,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="406850453" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.7.88]) by fmsmga003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Jan 2021 02:38:00 -0800 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:37:57 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Tyler Retzlaff , dev@dpdk.org, dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com, navasile@linux.microsoft.com, ciara.power@intel.com Message-ID: <20210120103757.GB1406@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1610408246-29482-1-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> <4843599.5pFrObeWOY@thomas> <20210119213125.GA1983@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> <5601419.A6MszWdEHB@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5601419.A6MszWdEHB@thomas> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] metrics/windows: build rte_metrics library X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:52:03PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 19/01/2021 22:31, Tyler Retzlaff: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:19:55PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > Not sure it makes sense without the new telemetry feature. > > > Please focus on telemetry lib instead of half-enabling > > > the old metrics lib. > > > > > > > can you elaborate? (or reference a mailing list discussion) that gives some > > guidance? > > > > is the telemetry lib a replacement for metrics? the component we have now > > relies on the non-telemetry functions exported from metrics but does not > > use the telemetry functions. > > > > also, i notice that the meson.build for telemetry lib has an include path > > that references rte_metrics but does not appear to actually include any of > > the headers from rte_metrics (vestigial? missed in previous cleanup perhaps?) > > I think Bruce and Ciara will better explain than me > the intent of the telemetry lib and the compatibility path with the metrics lib. > The include path addition for metrics to the telemetry library does indeed look like it was just missed being removed, since I can compile things up successfully with it removed. With regards to interaction between telemetry library and metrics library, they are complementary but not replacements for each other. The metrics library provides support for tracking metrics, mostly on a per-port basis. The original telemetry library implementation was based on top of the metrics library and supported reporting out data from that library. More recent versions of the telemetry library have reworked that support to allow the reporting of arbitrary telemetry data, not just from the metrics library, but the old interface is still supported. /Bruce