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 B5FD2A046B for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:10:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3EE1BEA1; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:10:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pl1-f193.google.com (mail-pl1-f193.google.com [209.85.214.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5FC1BEA0 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:10:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pl1-f193.google.com with SMTP id d3so1267263plr.1 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:10:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aQVXj2ixn+WlnFClci1EXQhR6RRMKmQ4y/Dr4Sn+uGM=; b=qVPSxHQY7C7gXVHdvEwAs2YWaS3hwqIMXWYGe7dQ5F9AsYCmXMT0FozpA9YNj55d8A WMBrSvnzoKOXll+8qt358x7c7XMwLsz1FU9XswLK4AOM4GGPmgU7hW+jeVdbFdqavxxg 6rg1V5ewk70qefE+46wSs0bqR1cUKH+hLicyAKGzOj1H8hXts+G0PpQycZ+v7lvE7fEx +SpadDcDQAnDOCmqfWmjJJYObBk/ckWQjfGA6puLiTHBLubgkoNZf8pZ6ubzs5YrSyea LBU57Yoqeh5bINpOItv2mgXVtjxeJNJp6FImm6efR4dJxJnpPbAJvcJ+zZtOcFsAtToP 5wxw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aQVXj2ixn+WlnFClci1EXQhR6RRMKmQ4y/Dr4Sn+uGM=; b=IX96YgWwcm6k04UYk2Uex7iF7kRUFxwfln3j/hSigO0wtBNKhpI2HXAE4ddAOE3wMo O8D497NcT0uTm/BQPz9JquLShxzz10Yhe8BExWPdUN6D3GRdZzWv0KJQwu9Wq2QT3sv1 7QDnjcGLM4i3bbZxjK71LJHAq8ILRUazuYzFeJhpPvSIRJ/ejB7dU6/v9YmyabSTqt5U xaB6OEQeU9saZfp1xrAmb/fnBlQJjxlA+olPtGcsnVtTkjrKuQGaf9S0pQMVPG2cbcfz 0R1z3qk7VsyrRTV0j8sq6CZ92NlChdg64J/vN2Em1LX1uu4OuIr0vJq9Q1PXF1V+nsad cNig== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUVF6CWiu+oE69dRrTPhf+KKA3rwkENzAPBvN2Q3yCC3kV+sCOG tkMmDub9ORGQBz8Y3pFGudu2pw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyDXJV14Mcdree9EfIYU1v9xPvqbZlWrAMg2cPAxkoxEJtT0a+J2eS3eSwbUWS9qpl1+Kfcew== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:4383:: with SMTP id j3mr23095162pld.69.1566234610110; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.lan (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q10sm18478654pfl.8.2019.08.19.10.10.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:10:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:10:02 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> To: Jim Harris <james.r.harris@intel.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, anatoly.burakov@intel.com Message-ID: <20190819101002.1c250d01@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <156620773023.46233.9134599999619749565.stgit@jrharri1-skx> References: <156620773023.46233.9134599999619749565.stgit@jrharri1-skx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] timer: don't check tsc flags in secondary processes 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 Mon, 19 Aug 2019 02:42:10 -0700 Jim Harris <james.r.harris@intel.com> wrote: > check_tsc_flags() parses /proc/cpuinfo and prints > warning messages if any cores don't have constant_tsc > and nonstop_tsc. It has no functional meaning. > This consumes a noticeable amount of time in > secondary processes - on my test system, it consumes > 21ms out of the 66ms total execution time for > rte_eal_init(). > > So let's just skip checking these flags in secondary > processes. Since the primary process is already > parsing the entirety of /proc/cpuinfo, the warning > printed in the primary process should be sufficient. > > Signed-off-by: Jim Harris <james.r.harris@intel.com> Since all it does is print a warning, I would argue the code is useless anyway and should just be removed. The warning doesn't provide any indication of what to do for users; or even tell them what the effect is.