Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/8] trace: simplify trace point registration

[Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>]

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.


> - Olivier is OK for changing the RTE_LOG_REGSISTER macro, So we could
> clean the log as well.
>
>
> > Really nice.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Marchand
> >