From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B570443AE1; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 18:05:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6351940295; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 18:05:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D09040278 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 18:05:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE240207E715; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:05:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com DE240207E715 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1707411915; bh=cDGBY0CUQtnKH32T27Ei2gAI8FpOpvTGk844KXSdPWQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Snl2Abq+BqVvd0H0mYU1rTTNZS3ssjHt+GgePjvCUf3zD7zI5Lfkz3SLqnAJof1Zv ULFKEDdtPSm5itLx5dwqdX2FRE/ffNmKR6rMX48XST7tS56vXunDBgkhLXqT0E24kL L/Bv/JiD5FvbGe8I32esJN+rLo6gy7iXM6x0dvgs= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:05:14 -0800 From: Rahul Gupta To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: David Marchand , dev@dpdk.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com, dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, sovaradh@linux.microsoft.com, okaya@kernel.org, sujithsankar@microsoft.com, sowmini.varadhan@microsoft.com, krathinavel@microsoft.com, rahulrgupta27@gmail.com Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] eal: refactor rte_eal_init into sub-functions Message-ID: <20240208170514.GA26195@microsoft.com> References: <1706103911-6907-1-git-send-email-rahulgupt@linux.microsoft.com> <20240129053508.GB6963@microsoft.com> <2255489.irdbgypaU6@thomas> <20240203125749.GA28537@microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20240203125749.GA28537@microsoft.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On (02/03/24 04:57), Rahul Gupta wrote: > Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:57:49 -0800 > From: Rahul Gupta > To: Thomas Monjalon > Cc: David Marchand , dev@dpdk.org, > bruce.richardson@intel.com, dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com, > stephen@networkplumber.org, sovaradh@linux.microsoft.com, > okaya@kernel.org, sujithsankar@microsoft.com, > sowmini.varadhan@microsoft.com, krathinavel@microsoft.com, > rahulrgupta27@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] eal: refactor rte_eal_init into > sub-functions > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) > > On (02/02/24 11:21), Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 11:21:59 +0100 > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > To: Rahul Gupta > > Cc: David Marchand , dev@dpdk.org, > > bruce.richardson@intel.com, dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com, > > stephen@networkplumber.org, sovaradh@linux.microsoft.com, > > okaya@kernel.org, sujithsankar@microsoft.com, > > sowmini.varadhan@microsoft.com, krathinavel@microsoft.com, > > rahulrgupta27@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] eal: refactor rte_eal_init into > > sub-functions > > > > 29/01/2024 08:55, David Marchand: > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 6:35 AM Rahul Gupta > > > wrote: > > > > > Looking at what this patch does.. I am under the impression all you > > > > > really need is rte_eal_init without initial probing. > > > > > Such behavior can probably be achieved with a allowlist set to a non > > > > > existing device (like for example "-a 0000:00:00.0"), then later, use > > > > > device hotplug. > > > > The patch will be useful to all the adapters irrespective of their > > > > host plug support. > > > > > > I did not say hotplug support is needed. > > > If what I described already works, this patch adds nothing. > > > > I agree with David. > > Disabling initial probing should provide what you want. > > Did you test his proposal? > > > > > Yes, I was about to reply after testing same, will be done with testing in few days. > But I think the bootup time saved by my patch and hot plug patch will be almost same, > because apart from FLR (probe()) the extra work done by my patch (i.e. telemetry, > rte_service_init() in parallel to mbuf pool creation) are consuming very less bootup time. > So in future if more things are added to 2nd part of eal_init (i.e. rte_eal_init_async_setup()), > then the bootup time will be less if we use my patch. > I think we can defer this patch till then. > > Thanks, > Rahul. Initial tests looks ok wrt application bootup time saving by using the hot plug APIs and so we may not need the patch for rte_eal_init(). Thanks for revewing patch and suggestions. Thanks, Rahul.