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 5DF91A04A7; Tue, 5 May 2020 18:59:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6E71D5BF; Tue, 5 May 2020 18:59:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E291D16F for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 18:58:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1EB5801F1; Tue, 5 May 2020 12:58:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 05 May 2020 12:58:57 -0400 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=fm1; bh= F4l9ckByvx1FJoVn1VSpNRS5tpdI2PkoLDq1Ju9JwjA=; b=n2/x7RJG78w4xMDx 3G1RDMBkjhXmVO/u907de8RMTNSq10g2zYqjUGuTybnyzZEF3CTSzK26HyyPLXnw 0HztbNB+KJUGwS+elDFo17rmx0S63/zFwkrOwLSZkm84JT22OqqxShAHF5vyvrv/ lMslnP7VcAGt13hUZpX+NpfgEibfnJ+ejwljSnwgXXOVAshvnsWq/vk/FrUdukEt /OeKBobVPU2tSZKK69eDMm61enlcslPokBSQ2c6f31z9ULrMGNUI5VtuPPYm8CQ9 RaChkphnzjHOAK25Cwc4lMX/2oCzVnCNP7H2etn/3Gqk3e4d4hnlpRm3rFLfUM6Z k5W1Hw== 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=fm2; bh=F4l9ckByvx1FJoVn1VSpNRS5tpdI2PkoLDq1Ju9Jw jA=; b=vneneAU1wtuDxl4DK1wswDzRG3F+6MUSnL/IYbBQCdhH10LJtpykyUAs8 CqYnCcrkZGU1cCiVmFnFrdW5x7xdX3J9yQh/5k12k0/zMbFqqlGI1Gk7dMptzukV 9Pulra5MA5C4Lj0cHoa7dwKKBEj1j/g65qEigRDd8n6nwlGw76nk7vSFr5B/Vwuq pzzfHKqiDvLl6QhX9RYXPQlCDd5xJleDvlQFFvStjQ2GKZZ8OQg6+Ui0Nd+zJlhZ RXZ7TTpDxu+ToSbmCoNVi8jncONx5+DbHsBGks/GzpZv2ccy8ViNhecxAYlKzzYh v06DHvs1DyyLgCHXosLfRWP2ZTwmw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrjeeigddutdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght 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 4C3A630660C9; Tue, 5 May 2020 12:58:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand , Jerin Jacob Cc: dpdk-dev , Jerin Jacob , Sunil Kumar Kori , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , Declan Doherty , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , Olivier Matz Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 18:58:53 +0200 Message-ID: <2445287.7s5MMGUR32@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20200503203135.6493-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/8] trace: simplify trace point registration 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" 05/05/2020 18:46, Jerin Jacob: > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:58 PM David Marchand wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:25 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:56 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:06 PM David Marchand wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:13 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > > Please share the data. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Measured time between first rte_trace_point_register and last one with > > > > > > > a simple patch: > > > > > > > > > > > > I will try to reproduce this, once we finalize on the above synergy > > > > > > with rte_log. > > > > > > > > > > I took the time to provide measure but you won't take the time to look at this. > > > > > > > > I will spend time on this. I would like to test with a shared library > > > > also and more tracepoints. > > > > I was looking for an agreement on using the constructor for rte_log as > > > > well(Just make sure the direction is correct). > > > > > > > > Next steps: > > > > - I will analyze the come back on this overhead on this thread. > > > > > > I have added 500 constructors for testing the overhead with the shared > > > build and static build. > > > My results inline with your results aka negligible overhead. > > > > > > David, > > > Do you have plan for similar RTE_LOG_REGISTER as mentioned earlier? > > > I would like to have rte_log and rte_trace semantics similar to registration. > > > If you are not planning to submit the rte_log patch then I can send > > > one for RC2 cleanup. > > > > It won't be possible for me. > > I can do that if we agree on the specifics. > > > > > > Relying on the current rte_log_register is buggy with shared builds, > > as drivers are calling rte_log_register, then impose a default level > > without caring about what the user passed. > > So if we introduce a RTE_LOG_REGISTER macro now at least this must be fixed too. > > > > What I wanted to do: > > - merge rte_log_register_and_pick_level() (experimental) into > > rte_log_register, doing this should be fine from my pov, > > - reconsider the relevance of a fallback logtype when registration fails, > > - shoot the default level per component thing: levels meaning is > > fragmented across the drivers/libraries because of it, but this will > > open a big box of stuff, > > This you are referring to internal implementation improvement. Right? > I was referring to remove the current clutter[1] > If we stick the following as the interface. Then you can do other > improvements when you get time > that won't change the consumer code or interference part. > > #define RTE_LOG_REGISTER(type, name, level) This discussion is interesting but out of scope for rte_trace. I am also interested in rte_log registration cleanup, but I know it is too much work for the last weeks of 20.05. As Olivier said about rte_trace, "Since it's a new API, it makes sense to make it as good as possible for the first version." So please let's conclude on this rte_trace patch for 20.05-rc2, and commit to fix rte_log registration in the first days of 20.08.