From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1D01B6E2 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:21:57 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Feb 2019 01:21:56 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,347,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="132535742" Received: from fmsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.201]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2019 01:21:56 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx111.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.5) by FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 01:21:55 -0800 Received: from bgsmsx104.gar.corp.intel.com (10.223.4.190) by fmsmsx111.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 01:21:55 -0800 Received: from bgsmsx101.gar.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.248]) by BGSMSX104.gar.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.247]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:51:51 +0530 From: "Varghese, Vipin" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "Mcnamara, John" , "Kovacevic, Marko" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" , "Patel, Amol" , "Padubidri, Sanjay A" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] doc: add guide for debug and troubleshoot Thread-Index: AQHUsUQTAwP90sa7M02bGGlFDZ/yaqXDk2IAgAE1xBD//70WAIARNhhg Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:21:51 +0000 Message-ID: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D303182@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> References: <20190116145452.53835-3-vipin.varghese@intel.com> <4205846.5ZvrQ4I3CE@xps> <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2F76D5@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> <2883718.iZx1J08iSk@xps> In-Reply-To: <2883718.iZx1J08iSk@xps> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiYmNmNDhmYWMtYTAyNC00YWNkLWJhYTktOTNjZDliM2NjOWI2IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiN2ErR3F0a2J5UFwvN2MxRTh3cmhhUmw0dTgxWGprNGErYnJEK2lTamVWN3dJeEQ5Ym9tVTBSd0xnNkdFK2NDUDYifQ== dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.223.10.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] doc: add guide for debug and troubleshoot 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 09:21:58 -0000 Hi Thomas, John and Marko, I am working on sharing the next version with grammar checks done with Gram= marly. Will update ASAP. Thanks Vipin Varghese > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 9:30 PM > To: Varghese, Vipin > Cc: Mcnamara, John ; Kovacevic, Marko > ; dev@dpdk.org; shreyansh.jain@nxp.com; > Patel, Amol ; Padubidri, Sanjay A > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] doc: add guide for debug and > troubleshoot >=20 > 28/01/2019 15:51, Varghese, Vipin: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > snipped > > > > > > I feel this doc will be updated to provide a complete debug > > > checklist, > > Attempt is made to capture commonly seen filed issue. Saying so, I am > > clear that I will not be able to identify all debug check list. As > > time, experience and sharing increases (from the community), I am > > certain sure this will grow >=20 > Yes this is what I mean. > We just need to give a good start by explaining well the intent and conte= xt. >=20 > > > > +Debug & Troubleshoot guide via PMD > > > > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > > > Why "via PMD"? Do we use PMD for troubleshooting? > > I believe yes, we do collect information with enhanced procinfo tool. > > > > > Or is it dedicated to troubleshoot the PMD behaviour? > > I am not clear with this statement. Hence is the query 'Is this dedicat= ed to > troubleshooting Application. PMD and Library uses cases?' >=20 > Sorry I don't understand. > I think you can just remove "via PMD" in the title. >=20 > [...] > > > > + * single primary > > > > + * multiple primary > > > > + * single primary single secondary > > > > + * single primary multiple secondary > > > > + > > > > +In all the above cases, it is a tedious task to isolate, debug > > > > +and understand odd behaviour which occurs randomly or > > > > +periodically. The goal of guide is to share and explore a few > > > > +commonly seen patterns and behaviour. Then, isolate and identify > > > > +the root cause via step by step debug at various processing stages= . > > > > > > I don't understand how this introduction is related to "via PMD" in t= he > title. > > I believe the information is shared ```The goal of guide is to share > > and explore a few commonly seen patterns and behaviour. Then, isolate > > and identify the root cause via step by step debug at various > > processing stages.'``` > > > > There would multiple ways to design application for solving a same prob= lem. > These are depended on user, platform, scaling factor and target. These va= rious > combinations make use PMD and libraries. Misconfiguration and not taking > care of platform will cause throttling and even drops. > > > > Example: application designed to run on single is now been deployed to = run > on multi NUMA model. >=20 > Yes, so you are explaining there can be a lot of different scenarios. >=20 > [...] > > > > +#. Linux 64-bit|32-bit > > > > +#. DPDK PMD and libraries are used > > > > > > Isn't it always the case with DPDK? > > > > > > > +#. Libraries and PMD are either static or shared. But not both > > > > > > Strange assumption. Why would it be both? > > If applications are only build with DPDK libraries, then yes the assump= tion is > correct. But when applications are build using DPDK as one of software la= yer > (example DPDK network stack, DPDK suricata, DPDK hyperscan) as per my > understanding this is not true. >=20 > Sorry I don't understand. > The DPDK libraries are either shared or static, but never mixed. > Anyway why is it significant here? >=20 > > > > +#. Machine flag optimizations of gcc or compiler are made > > > > +constant > > > > > > What do you mean? > > I can reword as ```DPDK and the application libraries are built with > > same flags. ``` >=20 > Why is it significant? >=20 >=20