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 07B3DA04AF; Mon, 4 May 2020 16:04:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7371D15C; Mon, 4 May 2020 16:04:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C36F1D159 for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 16:04:46 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1588601086; 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=pcof2cwwWv1C35iMLCdsA4JCtg5jNLEMoTBxhgX8w9Y=; b=G+fjVAYbVmEpa+Uh05MwYuFP6dR6gdqylxXDIlff+sKYsP745EUO3NYLlE5wmDk/K60E3y cU9Qv+DriO4sUq7N1GDdjx417SgGucVfnVarpUeMw1TITeSzfYsE/oICA+SqmHIK9WXq61 C990OX/0cRZ8rOEtFUpKr2sVJtqmmFc= Received: from mail-vk1-f197.google.com (mail-vk1-f197.google.com [209.85.221.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-313-VvykKd_gPiKVTW_EHfj0bw-1; Mon, 04 May 2020 10:04:44 -0400 X-MC-Unique: VvykKd_gPiKVTW_EHfj0bw-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id x128so9060073vkd.9 for ; Mon, 04 May 2020 07:04:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JWA1K62xjlC5/x0FvlLM46DP5tUdHbQEcDpCaA3pM14=; b=R6wzu2gulFNMra4tJLSAYlH0m7w/9HXKxb6m+XdAJ72uwqOH7nzpA/nztQHVx6ZFYD zT62rPzw2i1+tMZctMcEC7dk5HTSozLtRvZ8Uvtzvkk2HBlcAGCpegxnq+0qs4PHiIvZ EanlLR8JnvEVJvCwin5SLNSBQgN+2XNC92ispx1N/G3IaI2ssCAdtCaPqzmg7ftukQr4 swVALoxH5lLcJrZZzD9zIhLDKpJyzLTBsofB1mawrTO5wS9O8qzAJWICn5BkwMowPUC9 Oo31el35MQF/+EagN5zn4pVNI/GcjIevLGiiFvOFbpH+vRMNtbmMRgQYz9FIlafdjatc 3jhw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYWgj7Gu47IM7GIeVD2fmttCTOflDsaXCMJc1weE+DBnri459oJ ChvMScP9caz0gyviG2HLinPjZ3kSxiaLnpQAD2OktuUqIbYK8Ra38OGo+tBYNmCln/k5/7GAkNc bQa5gyo+xvVSHtpJhlmc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:382:: with SMTP id m2mr12286751vsq.141.1588601083182; Mon, 04 May 2020 07:04:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypICiEVaErFQj/zXDioVuu+1QUd3XgJhBHEnE4fTv+VkMYr1N5lem+w89ufMds/UlI3yvquiJTRyUOTYMKmkfpM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:382:: with SMTP id m2mr12286700vsq.141.1588601082853; Mon, 04 May 2020 07:04:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200503203135.6493-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20200503203135.6493-3-david.marchand@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:04:31 +0200 Message-ID: To: Jerin Jacob Cc: dpdk-dev , Thomas Monjalon , Jerin Jacob , Sunil Kumar Kori , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , Declan Doherty , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , Olivier Matz X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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" On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 4:47 AM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:02 AM David Marchand = wrote: > > > > RTE_TRACE_POINT_DEFINE and RTE_TRACE_POINT_REGISTER must come in pairs. > > Merge them and let RTE_TRACE_POINT_REGISTER handle the constructor part= . > > > Initially, I thought of doing the same. But, later I realized that > this largely grows the number of constructors been called. > I had concerns about the boot time of the application and/or loading > the shared library, that the reason why spitting > as two so that constructor registers a burst of traces like rte_log. I am a bit skeptical. In terms of cycles and looking at __rte_trace_point_register() (which calls malloc), the cost of calling multiple constructors instead of one is negligible. --=20 David Marchand