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 D5D3BA00C2; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 13:46:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3A31D57B; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 13:46:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wr1-f66.google.com (mail-wr1-f66.google.com [209.85.221.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B281D54D for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 13:46:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f66.google.com with SMTP id b11so6471186wrs.6 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 04:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:content-transfer-encoding:user-agent:mime-version; bh=G8LzuSwcXxYc+fu0IR6lxqtipxZcX6bf3qt1xIwoVq4=; b=qINKpNDuO2sXZwXaFXahjce7JSxfldJQC525oy6uAPWU9luTO7ShKMF+bPHIZDJYD4 GGUFF+56n9LzqX9tjR53Q5KZXj3jfKSqtlYbmKLsZQhH3imFSsk/QNg8lP21EpeFxBLA ddShAeOu4HRvaFl1ze31YtutIuxNetGjQudV1B7fny33C7XRcu/3m/3coDg3pFypzO6C 0r7bSIlUKJaWRGXiYQmhDWT8Q0IanUhb6/CtE8YDhjy6SdWtJoVMSzCE4zuUbD2lFQQg sa0husfpuMYHKyvcxgqX2RaVvYFZM68onoM4Af+HZMkfKkf6tqIznQ3Bb1BxsTNkGp2l 7tsA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaK3Tfrr5MNa1EWDYs3RQt6SJn8OlIo6GaD/6ewyA+rJRJESDbj jIMI7dJ+k1YmD9aemPvIsbI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLvYP0mEGCf7q6OwIoEQIN694rXgUG0Ux704RCkWd5CclqkbM1+7TFZFKmXM9/NWPMMru3OQA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:658c:: with SMTP id q12mr4802666wru.128.1587642373130; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 04:46:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a01:4b00:f419:6f00:7a8e:ed70:5c52:ea3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a20sm3657156wra.26.2020.04.23.04.46.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 23 Apr 2020 04:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6bd06b684a3cc3815debc8a84c70c599f97efc90.camel@debian.org> From: Luca Boccassi To: Thomas Monjalon , Bruce Richardson Cc: Ciara Power , dev@dpdk.org, kevin.laatz@intel.com, reshma.pattan@intel.com, jerinjacobk@gmail.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, keith.wiles@intel.com, mb@smartsharesystems.com, aostruszka@marvell.com, amo@semihalf.com Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:46:10 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1686503.Zkmt1EvEu4@thomas> References: <20200319171907.60891-1-ciara.power@intel.com> <8682539.rMLUfLXkoz@thomas> <1686503.Zkmt1EvEu4@thomas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 00/16] update and simplify telemetry library. 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" On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 12:44 +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 23/04/2020 12:30, Luca Boccassi: > > On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 11:37 +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 09/04/2020 11:19, Bruce Richardson: > > > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 08:03:26PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 08/04/2020 18:49, Ciara Power: > > > > > > This patchset extensively reworks the telemetry library adding = new > > > > > > functionality and simplifying much of the existing code, while > > > > > > maintaining backward compatibility. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > This work is based on the previously sent RFC for a "process in= fo" > > > > > > library: https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series= =3D7741 > > > > > > However, rather than creating a new library, this patchset take= s > > > > > > that work and merges it into the existing telemetry library, as > > > > > > mentioned above. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > The telemetry library as shipped in 19.11 is based upon the met= rics > > > > > > library and outputs all statistics based on that as a source. H= owever, > > > > > > this limits the telemetry output to only port-level statistics > > > > > > information, rather than allowing it to be used as a general sc= heme for > > > > > > telemetry information across all DPDK libraries. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > With this patchset applied, rather than the telemetry library b= eing > > > > > > responsible for pulling ethdev stats and pushing them into the = metrics > > > > > > library for retrieval later, each library e.g. ethdev, rawdev, = and even > > > > > > the metrics library itself (for backwards compatiblity) now han= dle their > > > > > > own stats. Any library or app can register a callback function= with > > > > > > telemetry, which will be called if requested by the client conn= ected via > > > > > > the telemetry socket. The callback function in the library/app = then > > > > > > formats its stats, or other data, into a JSON string, and retur= ns it to > > > > > > telemetry to be sent to the client. > > > > >=20 > > > > > I think this is a global need in DPDK, and it is usually called R= PC, > > > > > IPC or control messaging. > > > > > We had a similar need for multi-process communication, thus rte_m= p IPC. > > > > > We also need a control channel for user configuration application= s. > > > > > We also need to control some features like logging or tracing. > > > > >=20 > > > > > In my opinion, it is time to introduce a general control channel = in DPDK. > > > > > The application must be in the loop of the control mechanism. > > > > > Making such channel standard will ease application adoption. > > > > >=20 > > > > > Please read some comments here: > > > > > http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/2580933.jp2sp48Hzj@xps/ > > > > >=20 > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > >=20 > > > > I agree that having a single control mechanism or messaging mechani= sm in > > > > DPDK would be nice to have. However, I don't believe the plans for = such a > > > > scheme should impact this patchset right now as the idea of a commo= n > > > > channel was only first mooted about a week ago, and while there has= been > > > > some email discussion about it, there is as yet no requirements lis= t that > > > > I've seen, nobody actually doing coding work on it, no rfc and most > > > > importantly no timeline for creating and merging such into DPDK. > > >=20 > > > Yes, this is a new idea. > > > Throwing the idea in this "telemetry" thread and in "IF proxy" thread > > > is the first step before starting a dedicated thread to design > > > a generic mechanism. > >=20 > > May I offer the services of https://zeromq.org/ ? >=20 > This is what I already proposed: > http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20334513.huCnfhLgOn@xps/ >=20 > I'm sorry, I was supposed to start a new thread for this discussion. > I will summarize my thoughts and discussions just after -rc1 is done. Ah! They say great minds think alike :-P --=20 Kind regards, Luca Boccassi