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 88745A0351; Tue, 5 May 2020 22:10:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81EC91D667; Tue, 5 May 2020 22:10:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wnew3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wnew3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.17]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B761D158 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 22:10:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F94B02; Tue, 5 May 2020 16:10:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 05 May 2020 16:10:29 -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= W202i5Q2HF4UFSJWwgWDYppu12eueSMscLPZxFbJ9z0=; b=BS7flxORgGq78S05 zgagLsJ8fCYbp3WvdH6b2dblxCaGY1ARzk2M/48emPuCn6VsIXOziOT/FlCsg8mu btu640/A71mIbhQUc9P42cHDDWPMC9spdsFO4xClQx9uu863h91sxbWhIY+eDfXo I++V0KLecTpviDnEawWUAw1u6NHoEGvQKWo8n+qmEvh+okxO4SN8X7Pd5K6jp4PG HCOTXdhU4Eib0ycHACkFKjnr4n6QtFyM9Lxc1wD4jx3SyvYAxag+j7r7go7gzP8V KKUG+334YxIj9DwhfZPITyCbWXNXQc5hDqIFpCorTA7ca74tWn70eV4GmE4eh5yw JTK/tg== 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=W202i5Q2HF4UFSJWwgWDYppu12eueSMscLPZxFbJ9 z0=; b=C/yjdL2NwArmUTTq0xs9BKRL7UpiG0Fq1RUlD4UPL3Q2tOmPZ0BFQcPuY oRVZbf7RRzd6kmR5+Wm3aLqrlpiV8gDMDaaU2kjgHY1UAzhMc+fSeCNhCy9KPQEW ZaDrUuHd3zGbGN4qy3Tod98vbk3JRHaLb91wS2bAdVyko9IhUKCDlDzumrUOhMDi 0NIuWNZfUu5EJdQ3KXO5+rpVJF+2sXWrcqCS7dRXgWtXVws08dnWSBhXMlPOdJ3M CIG0R7cl0c1VGE3DoEffpIMbB6f5bhAE4dC3lFgySxX+lHhFWrHdzBWHCXNM0zsx 0Ttug12SsSJM8QXdal2ttyUct5u3g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrjeejgddtlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth 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 028363065E14; Tue, 5 May 2020 16:10:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jerin Jacob Cc: David Marchand , dpdk-dev , Jerin Jacob , Sunil Kumar Kori , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , Declan Doherty , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , Olivier Matz Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 22:10:23 +0200 Message-ID: <4414218.rnE6jSC6OK@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20200503203135.6493-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <1870194.PIDvDuAF1L@thomas> 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 19:28, Jerin Jacob: > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:50 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 05/05/2020 19:09, Jerin Jacob: > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:38 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:28 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Why not hold the trace registration patch 2/8 and apply rest for RC2. > > > > Once we have synergy between the registration scheme between rte_log > > > > and rte_trace > > > > apply the patch for RC2. > > > > > > I meant, Once we have synergy between the registration scheme between > > > rte_log and rte_trace > > > apply the patch for _20.08_? > > > > Because of what I wrote above: > > 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." > > > > The intent is to show an API as simple as possible > > in order to have a maximum of developers integrating it, > > and getting more interesting feedbacks. > > > > In other words, we want to make your work shine for prime time. > > I like that, If it is not shining just because of 2/8 not applying now > then I fine with that. > Anyway, it is an experimental API, There is still room to change and > nothing is set and stone. > For me, the synergy between log/trace interface important as trace > needs to replace rte_log. Now that I better understand what rte_trace (and tracing in general) is, I believe rte_log cannot be replaced. I think we can write logs in traces, as a log option, but it should be just one possible output among others. I think everybody agree to use one constructor per log type and per trace type. We are ready to do this change for rte_trace first. This is your call to accept it or not, even if don't understand why you would like both to be done at the exact same time.