From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC357CDA for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:59:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BAEB221FC; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 10:59:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 10:59:47 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=i0GUV5rDtpUkNeWWnvRwpE++ZUg+ATqYj6BD8LiLj0g=; b=DA7Ld+BV0jSm PiCoYLWbhZWe5XdpeNytCJ3YdWt9TiKAphTQzvl/OTEwQlEXIAPIws3HMotqD6u/ llwY91fSrxcmcYkyxfVuCHm2axb2EE6/VcJBB3RH0YoU0C0yJGQAHq5MQDKsOY1V NBIH6w2QGlfUaxDx2SwnmETUby3xEQM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=i0GUV5rDtpUkNeWWnvRwpE++ZUg+ATqYj6BD8LiLj 0g=; b=NEwAtgDOubcEoIqO3a7xIo9qGtWJwJPOeEM24pyOK5vpeLA28gC+jUg8v 5jthDpB6Gqw9I+/+wKsSMxaDi8nuMuaaNlZyp0/Oi7DmUwWmfZd8GUxlbUxdWrT9 a62YnqEF6m5ky7OgbQ14HuTDn6MFtAxoIiGe5lO2MYv9RVUE1JH9yygh2XMLsNgb Wlwh5lk/+SO3WbsN+i8Ok61jRhertlEE9vFrinf0k3nU3pMVOK+vye80M28o4uWd tMVfssu4a5wp7BqCcDsbofkR23yyrIyw0fa++9b6/mIxmNaoTNgfz9SZh4eZwzAs in27/szt7IEsqMKfml/Qwc5RPe8mg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrjedtgdekjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedt tdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfh gggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceo thhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfe drudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 66A1710281; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 10:59:45 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Varghese, Vipin" Cc: "Mcnamara, John" , "Kovacevic, Marko" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" , "Patel, Amol" , "Padubidri, Sanjay A" Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:59:44 +0100 Message-ID: <2883718.iZx1J08iSk@xps> In-Reply-To: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2F76D5@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> References: <20190116145452.53835-3-vipin.varghese@intel.com> <4205846.5ZvrQ4I3CE@xps> <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2F76D5@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] doc: add guide for debug and troubleshoot 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:59:48 -0000 28/01/2019 15:51, Varghese, Vipin: > Hi Thomas, > > snipped > > > > I feel this doc will be updated to provide a complete debug checklist, > Attempt is made to capture commonly seen filed issue. Saying so, I am clear that I will not be able to identify all debug check list. As time, experience and sharing increases (from the community), I am certain sure this will grow Yes this is what I mean. We just need to give a good start by explaining well the intent and context. > > > +Debug & Troubleshoot guide via PMD > > > +================================== > > > > Why "via PMD"? Do we use PMD for troubleshooting? > I believe yes, we do collect information with enhanced procinfo tool. > > > Or is it dedicated to troubleshoot the PMD behaviour? > I am not clear with this statement. Hence is the query 'Is this dedicated to troubleshooting Application. PMD and Library uses cases?' Sorry I don't understand. I think you can just remove "via PMD" in the title. [...] > > > + * single primary > > > + * multiple primary > > > + * single primary single secondary > > > + * single primary multiple secondary > > > + > > > +In all the above cases, it is a tedious task to isolate, debug and > > > +understand odd behaviour which occurs randomly or periodically. The > > > +goal of guide is to share and explore a few commonly seen patterns > > > +and behaviour. Then, isolate and identify the root cause via step by > > > +step debug at various processing stages. > > > > I don't understand how this introduction is related to "via PMD" in the title. > I believe the information is shared ```The goal of guide is to share and explore a few commonly seen patterns and behaviour. Then, isolate and identify the root cause via step by step debug at various processing stages.'``` > > There would multiple ways to design application for solving a same problem. These are depended on user, platform, scaling factor and target. These various combinations make use PMD and libraries. Misconfiguration and not taking care of platform will cause throttling and even drops. > > Example: application designed to run on single is now been deployed to run on multi NUMA model. Yes, so you are explaining there can be a lot of different scenarios. [...] > > > +#. Linux 64-bit|32-bit > > > +#. DPDK PMD and libraries are used > > > > Isn't it always the case with DPDK? > > > > > +#. Libraries and PMD are either static or shared. But not both > > > > Strange assumption. Why would it be both? > If applications are only build with DPDK libraries, then yes the assumption is correct. But when applications are build using DPDK as one of software layer (example DPDK network stack, DPDK suricata, DPDK hyperscan) as per my understanding this is not true. Sorry I don't understand. The DPDK libraries are either shared or static, but never mixed. Anyway why is it significant here? > > > +#. Machine flag optimizations of gcc or compiler are made constant > > > > What do you mean? > I can reword as ```DPDK and the application libraries are built with same flags. ``` Why is it significant?