From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F7AA05D3 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 15:58:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A603C5F2D; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 15:58:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51DF5B38 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 15:58:48 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Mar 2019 07:58:47 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,277,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="286374070" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.103]) ([10.237.220.103]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2019 07:58:46 -0700 To: Hajkowski , david.hunt@intel.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org References: <20190321105506.6656-1-marcinx.hajkowski@intel.com> <20190321105506.6656-5-marcinx.hajkowski@intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: <91674b9f-41ac-40c6-1043-a25a947917f6@intel.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 14:58:45 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190321105506.6656-5-marcinx.hajkowski@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] power: send confirmation cmd to vm guest 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" Message-ID: <20190327145845.o9j8JZPHUjeOuacO24gW_BM9SXzkgqfxo4oywX7d0QQ@z> On 21-Mar-19 10:55 AM, Hajkowski wrote: > From: Marcin Hajkowski > > Use new guest channel API to send confirmation > message for received power command. > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Hajkowski > --- > examples/vm_power_manager/channel_monitor.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/examples/vm_power_manager/channel_monitor.c b/examples/vm_power_manager/channel_monitor.c > index 1a3a0fa76..df1dc1205 100644 > --- a/examples/vm_power_manager/channel_monitor.c > +++ b/examples/vm_power_manager/channel_monitor.c > @@ -627,6 +627,39 @@ apply_policy(struct policy *pol) > apply_workload_profile(pol); > } > > +static int > +write_binary_packet(struct channel_packet *pkt, struct channel_info *chan_info) > +{ > + int ret, buffer_len = sizeof(*pkt); > + void *buffer = pkt; > + > + if (chan_info->fd == 0) { Shouldn't this be -1? > + RTE_LOG(ERR, CHANNEL_MONITOR, "Channel is not connected\n"); > + return -1; > + } > + > + while (buffer_len > 0) { > + ret = write(chan_info->fd, buffer, buffer_len); > + if (ret == -1) { > + if (errno == EINTR) > + continue; Perhaps writing out a debug message with strerror(errno) here? > + return -1; > + } > + buffer = (char *)buffer + ret; > + buffer_len -= ret; > + } > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int > +send_ack_for_received_cmd(struct channel_packet *pkt, > + struct channel_info *chan_info, > + uint32_t command) Too much tabs IMO :) > +{ > + pkt->command = command; > + return write_binary_packet(pkt, chan_info); > +} > + > static int > process_request(struct channel_packet *pkt, struct channel_info *chan_info) > { > @@ -645,33 +678,55 @@ process_request(struct channel_packet *pkt, struct channel_info *chan_info) > else > core_num = pkt->resource_id; > > + bool valid_unit = true; > + int scale_res; > + > switch (pkt->unit) { > case(CPU_POWER_SCALE_MIN): > - power_manager_scale_core_min(core_num); > + scale_res = power_manager_scale_core_min(core_num); > break; > case(CPU_POWER_SCALE_MAX): > - power_manager_scale_core_max(core_num); > + scale_res = power_manager_scale_core_max(core_num); > break; > case(CPU_POWER_SCALE_DOWN): > - power_manager_scale_core_down(core_num); > + scale_res = power_manager_scale_core_down(core_num); > break; > case(CPU_POWER_SCALE_UP): > - power_manager_scale_core_up(core_num); > + scale_res = power_manager_scale_core_up(core_num); > break; > case(CPU_POWER_ENABLE_TURBO): > - power_manager_enable_turbo_core(core_num); > + scale_res = power_manager_enable_turbo_core(core_num); > break; > case(CPU_POWER_DISABLE_TURBO): > - power_manager_disable_turbo_core(core_num); > + scale_res = power_manager_disable_turbo_core(core_num); > break; > default: > + valid_unit = false; > break; > } > + > + int ret = -1; > + if (valid_unit) { > + ret = send_ack_for_received_cmd(pkt, > + chan_info, > + scale_res > 0 ? > + CPU_POWER_CMD_ACK > + : CPU_POWER_CMD_NACK); I think layout like this looks more readable: ret = send_ack_for_received_cmd(pkt, chan_info, scale_res > 0 ? CPU_POWER_CMD_ACK : CPU_POWER_CMD_NACK); Note the two tabs (not three), extra tab for ternary, and colon on the first line rather than the second one. > + if (ret < 0) > + RTE_LOG(DEBUG, CHANNEL_MONITOR, "Error during sending ack command.\n"); > + } else > + RTE_LOG(DEBUG, CHANNEL_MONITOR, "Unexpected unit type.\n"); > + > } > > if (pkt->command == PKT_POLICY) { > RTE_LOG(INFO, CHANNEL_MONITOR, "Processing policy request %s\n", > pkt->vm_name); > + int ret = send_ack_for_received_cmd(pkt, > + chan_info, > + CPU_POWER_CMD_ACK); Again, four tabs seems way too much. Two maybe? > + if (ret < 0) > + RTE_LOG(DEBUG, CHANNEL_MONITOR, "Error during sending ack command.\n"); > update_policy(pkt); > policy_is_set = 1; > } > -- Thanks, Anatoly