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 BDF2BA00C3; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:54:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE8640695; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:54:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7966840693 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:54:05 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1664790844; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=aDVMhe0OgDEkHLlqeHRrReeAwHABKs81LglaS+EArh0=; b=ERSKglNzwN0tR//XNfU8J4KPa4v8pQNn90SEPFK1ZEcs8dtJt2j3ytcCH2twh9T+wkx22I Qb8P4fhBPl52RL3qWIBTVxMLvsq2LZB8LzMt1yXtX6kWanqY/s1zr46p72vNzMixDPb5L6 4GUhU+ZaSZKPpqSrJp2wBNsf/0WUSPI= Received: from mail-pj1-f72.google.com (mail-pj1-f72.google.com [209.85.216.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-185-oasP410bOyevX0mUX_RC_g-1; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 05:54:03 -0400 X-MC-Unique: oasP410bOyevX0mUX_RC_g-1 Received: by mail-pj1-f72.google.com with SMTP id v6-20020a17090a898600b0020a6fa41b32so4160566pjn.5 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 02:54:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date; bh=aDVMhe0OgDEkHLlqeHRrReeAwHABKs81LglaS+EArh0=; b=Uay7U5SZqowkH4BAEIeHiy98uuwTzzpvz7kttiVfO18twZSRw15Lg7AkuvdDLDMBO4 4Jm0QzWCWNM8gC9YZ4H8qV5ieA1IxArweGN1wRF/ljhjSRTIafJ1k2Uw/8D9N4xS44e9 WWhBa7rYOcCLP8nPRs0seBIca6WCVh++AeFg/DcpVkkrUOGNXaRaGICx1CY9nYQHeZqC aEHI5dyBoQ7jFo2W+6buUYrzZ6gh6O4HKlTyJfgxZ+tSizsioU76/2xbyneHv9ivV5Uy dbmVi9VuLujY4hIkSWLah0EG93t31eFj9fOA2SqGWS1ANveA6l1BJ6vVPhgjwjrcFowI hPiA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3dZFRxYubJC/vrVB9Qll36i9G+4RQ1pGreCwuSYai+SxXG/NqZ ygQl1rFUv0WsG1E7WK5aexCFZM/Ltk022YjWP7Qta7Qv06H48JSUoIP3SMZnB5dX8KoAAbZrVZE h2X5TPJAv5neBMvbEqP0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bf46:b0:179:eba5:90ba with SMTP id u6-20020a170902bf4600b00179eba590bamr21409518pls.16.1664790842896; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 02:54:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6DsqP7kh9+SfTb6IxmEGtd7QoMm5QmVYDAine97fWTnAuhwvjH9Xn44j3KL51ZvNhAcxc6lWAj8bID32CnaPk= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bf46:b0:179:eba5:90ba with SMTP id u6-20020a170902bf4600b00179eba590bamr21409498pls.16.1664790842632; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 02:54:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220708125645.3141464-2-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> <20220906161352.296110-1-mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:53:51 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] service: reduce statistics overhead for parallel services To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=C3=B6nnblom?= , Harry Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Honnappa Nagarahalli , =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= , nd X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 10:40 AM Mattias R=C3=B6nnblom wrote: > > On 2022-10-03 10:06, David Marchand wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 6:17 PM Mattias R=C3=B6nnblom > > wrote: > >> > >> Move the statistics from the service data structure to the per-lcore > >> struct. This eliminates contention for the counter cache lines, which > >> decreases the producer-side statistics overhead for services deployed > >> across many lcores. > >> > >> Prior to this patch, enabling statistics for a service with a > >> per-service function call latency of 1000 clock cycles deployed across > >> 16 cores on a Intel Xeon 6230N @ 2,3 GHz would incur a cost of ~10000 > >> core clock cycles per service call. After this patch, the statistics > >> overhead is reduce to 22 clock cycles per call. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Mattias R=C3=B6nnblom > > > > Re-reading the mail archive, I found that Morten acked the series > > (replying on patch 4). > > Mattias, such a series deserved a cover letter. > > > > Noted. Do you want a v2 with a cover letter? > > > How does this series fit with other patches from Harry? > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=3D31323334-501d5122-313273af-4544= 45555731-9ac8e99afde9bc77&q=3D1&e=3D946b2bf5-b58c-4c02-b173-bba36b0b12f9&u= =3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.dpdk.org%2Fproject%2Fdpdk%2Flist%2F%3Fseries%3D2= 3959%26state%3D%2A > > > > Thanks. > > > > The patchset I submitted is made against the above-linked patchset. > Nothing in the patchset I submitted depends on those patches. I just > assumed that Harry's patches would have been merged at the point my > patchset was considered. Harry v1 patch was indeed sent a while ago. But this v1 patch from Harry was superseded with a v2 and v3 series. There were comments on the v3 series from Harry. Now, looking at this series, without a cover letter, I had to guess. I saw it is linked to the v1 patch. I "assumed" it was then an alternative, since you had comments on Harry v3 patch, or at least Harry would reply and we could conclude. So what do we do? Should I understand that your comments on Harry series can be ignored and I proceed with all this? I hope it applies cleanly. --=20 David Marchand