From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03164A04A7; Tue, 5 May 2020 19:09:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97EB1D5CF; Tue, 5 May 2020 19:09:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-io1-f66.google.com (mail-io1-f66.google.com [209.85.166.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCEA1D5CE for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 5 May 2020 19:09:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io1-f66.google.com with SMTP id u11so2756734iow.4 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 05 May 2020 10:09:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yENtAyDsJ2CcOcfWYDPLsUP87loIJKkaMnIo0trrX4I=; b=Zd8oi3B/u6hH5vk0VbSUjzklzw1Yf4JW5thOKitJEr8ZWEhO1VLlwO+mVr/GXW4AHf X6Bg0/odp99WPGlgIX6w6llJNwZOgTDzDXET1BUi0E+Ev/CKuyPA5yVWImGpxy/istNw hyfjdty7nb15rxRIuVXKX0BHDBUC6Lh7pez9E1kjtW7n7g8h5/Hb397zL6SKHvEdOupM gHwXUB9+6rZj1Axea0h58AggxbnOIfLEfXrt7D1cjIkK2suO9g9ctCorJHrhMp8YS1JF rBc5Aa8YY8yh9SR3ggqR+VDuDEIf5mLVPCaA9iKtmXQN/QRBRctfLmAN5rb75EB2wx8T vRvw== 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=yENtAyDsJ2CcOcfWYDPLsUP87loIJKkaMnIo0trrX4I=; b=mtH5ctVsSaYfUxmb9NcSSncZXgCOG+8POoO/5GpqPLHzp0SnKxRlNPiddS2wJwTzjp 0pn4cafkp5jEo/XQ2miBN94TDPoF1vngAvtUWc9CoUsSE2Jebi2jmfGLpOWfYWD2U7Kw tM/cmmuKPUX+mCacdME7i98HTHcABC6cxE+vSaW4fo1hbEQuQem9CoEeyCCGBAMxx7Xg +/MQ4DeEJD3w35ktvZJxMwmRXvp9o+69R4gs51DCa0/vAVe2Ju6OvKBGHonuq6JskTlS b4Rqgl5CLJ+NXrI996qMHMXXcsnuE2Tzw2dpbkykL2bbT6PKT9Rzz0Gz2CmTZwDrUL43 RzHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYoUJBIjRZzSjmdgE/3IWNrRkMFRgxcQqW/sxwQ7E4ycGWJg62q JEEVpz4o2e8WSfmVVTU4XcL9SWCjNyJRTfDCdoc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJMbUXpuH+6uuYh5wGPmIe3dQIUPrMK1Y5Dk0aLgD+TLe1oF/Z6KNHkYjv1o/eCJ6aqib9kOi1e4nRznCMmENo= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8c89:: with SMTP id g9mr4374930ion.1.1588698563183; Tue, 05 May 2020 10:09:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200503203135.6493-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <CAJFAV8yDoMTSR9wOv9tp3r8aDKvzKFMv1J_JV1ThU45TRaGpew@mail.gmail.com> <CALBAE1PJTfdHij_aNnOxiYgqVjBSgptdV2ebJJ86bu3gCsT9cQ@mail.gmail.com> <2445287.7s5MMGUR32@thomas> <CALBAE1ME1AAoLZYfi_BcM622wAtuMZUr63k+XEKL3wx8BdjTGw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CALBAE1ME1AAoLZYfi_BcM622wAtuMZUr63k+XEKL3wx8BdjTGw@mail.gmail.com> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 22:39:06 +0530 Message-ID: <CALBAE1M=RPb6Wwq9t-37T1ciStzUfwgZ-ddwyiE0W9bo=WYAHA@mail.gmail.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> Cc: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>, dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>, Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>, Sunil Kumar Kori <skori@marvell.com>, John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>, Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>, Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:38 PM Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:28 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > 05/05/2020 18:46, Jerin Jacob: > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:58 PM David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:25 PM Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:56 PM Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:06 PM David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:13 PM Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com> 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_? > > > > > > > >