From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6BE41C45;
Thu, 9 Feb 2023 03:19:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CB340DDA;
Thu, 9 Feb 2023 03:19:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22884067B
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 03:19:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from kwepemm600004.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.54])
by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4PC0mY0nr3zJr08;
Thu, 9 Feb 2023 10:14:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.67.103.231] (10.67.103.231) by
kwepemm600004.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server
(version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id
15.1.2375.34; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 10:18:58 +0800
Message-ID: <373cbd89-3efe-fc4c-2300-edead9c0808c@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 10:18:57 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] eal: add lcore info in telemetry
To: Robin Jarry <rjarry@redhat.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>
References: <20221123102612.1688865-1-rjarry@redhat.com>
<20230207193731.1242505-2-rjarry@redhat.com>
<3cd7617f-dbb5-9626-2db1-e6a8ce5f6376@huawei.com>
<CQDCEL6712GN.2ZXJDBXU96JDT@ringo>
From: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>
CC: =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=c3=b8rup?= <mb@smartsharesystems.com>, Kevin Laatz
<kevin.laatz@intel.com>, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <CQDCEL6712GN.2ZXJDBXU96JDT@ringo>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.67.103.231]
X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To
kwepemm600004.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.242)
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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
在 2023/2/9 1:04, Robin Jarry 写道:
> Hi lihuisong,
>
> lihuisong (C), Feb 08, 2023 at 03:24:
>>> static int
>>> lcore_dump_cb(unsigned int lcore_id, void *arg)
>>> {
>>> struct rte_config *cfg = rte_eal_get_configuration();
>>> char cpuset[RTE_CPU_AFFINITY_STR_LEN];
>>> - const char *role;
>>> FILE *f = arg;
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> - switch (cfg->lcore_role[lcore_id]) {
>>> - case ROLE_RTE:
>>> - role = "RTE";
>>> - break;
>>> - case ROLE_SERVICE:
>>> - role = "SERVICE";
>>> - break;
>>> - case ROLE_NON_EAL:
>>> - role = "NON_EAL";
>>> - break;
>>> - default:
>>> - role = "UNKNOWN";
>>> - break;
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> ret = eal_thread_dump_affinity(&lcore_config[lcore_id].cpuset, cpuset,
>>> sizeof(cpuset));
>>> fprintf(f, "lcore %u, socket %u, role %s, cpuset %s%s\n", lcore_id,
>>> - rte_lcore_to_socket_id(lcore_id), role, cpuset,
>>> - ret == 0 ? "" : "...");
>>> + rte_lcore_to_socket_id(lcore_id),
>>> + lcore_role_str(cfg->lcore_role[lcore_id]),
>>> + cpuset, ret == 0 ? "" : "...");
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>> The above modification doesn't seem to be related to this patch.
>> Suggest remove or delete it from this patch.
> I was asked in an earlier review to factorize this into an helper to
> avoid code duplication.
ok, this patch also use lcore_role_str function. please ignore this comment.
>
>>> + if (info->lcore_id != lcore_id)
>> Suggest: info->lcore_id != lcore_id -> lcore_id != info->lcore_id
>> Here, info->lcore_id is a target and lcore_id is the variable to be
>> judged, right?
> Yeah that looks better. I didn't pay too much attention since this
> principle is not well respected in the current code base.
That's not a very good reason.
It's similar to "ret != 0" and "p != NULL" in DPDK coding style.
>
> .