From: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Jerin Jacob" <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jerin Jacob" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"Sunil Kumar Kori" <skori@marvell.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] eal: add build-time option to omit trace
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 14:58:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F77F@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALBAE1MLkSBWW1R0x7_TO7W6GxhZfL7HB82u7qc-w8N=xMXGQw@mail.gmail.com>
> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerinjacobk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2024 18.18
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:45 PM Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerinjacobk@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2024 18.06
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:32 PM Morten Brørup
> <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerinjacobk@gmail.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2024 17.02
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 7:44 PM Morten Brørup
> > > <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerinjacobk@gmail.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2024 16.05
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 7:19 PM Morten Brørup
> > > > > <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jerin,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you have no further comments, please add review/ack
> tag,
> > > to
> > > > > help
> > > > > > > Thomas see that the patch has been accepted by the
> maintainer,
> > > and
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > be merged.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There was a comment to make the function as
> > > rte_trace_is_enabled()
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > remove internal. The rest looks good to me. I will Ack in
> the
> > > next
> > > > > > > version.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps my reply to that comment was unclear... such a public
> > > > > function already exists in the previous API:
> > > > >
> > > > > I see. It was not clear.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v24.07/source/lib/eal/include/rte_trace
> > > > > .h#L36
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That function tells if trace enabled at both build time and
> > > runtime,
> > > > > and returns false if not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A separate public function to tell if trace is enabled at
> build
> > > time
> > > > > seems like overkill to me. Is that what you are asking for?
> > > > >
> > > > > No. Just use rte_trace_is_enabled() in app/test instead of
> > > > > __rte_trace_point_generic_is_enabled() as it is internal.
> > > >
> > > > Just tested it, and it didn't have the wanted effect.
> > > > I think rte_trace_is_enabled() returns false until at least one
> > > tracepoint has been enabled, which seems like a good optimization.
> > > > But it also means that we cannot use it to replace
> > > __rte_trace_point_generic_is_enabled() in test/app, because no
> > > tracepoints have been enabled at this point of execution, so it
> returns
> > > false here.
> > > >
> > > > I looked around in the code, and cannot find a method without
> looking
> > > at internals, or duplicating a test case.
> > > >
> > > > I could test if rte_trace_point_lookup("app.dpdk.test.tp")
> returns
> > > non-NULL, but that would duplicate the same test in
> > > test_trace_points_lookup().
> > > >
> > > > What do you think...
> > > > Keep using internal function
> __rte_trace_point_generic_is_enabled(),
> > > > test rte_trace_point_lookup("app.dpdk.test.tp") != NULL,
> > > > or any other idea?
> > >
> > > How about the following, it is anyway the correct thing to do
> > >
> > > bool
> > > rte_trace_is_enabled(void)
> > > {
> > > + if (__rte_trace_point_generic_is_enabled() == false)
> > > + return false;
> > > return rte_atomic_load_explicit(&trace.status,
> > > rte_memory_order_acquire) != 0;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > It's the opposite that's causing problems:
> > Even when built with trace, rte_trace_is_enabled() returns false,
> because no trace points have been enabled when the test application
> checks if it should run test cases or not. At this point, trace.status
> is zero, so it skips testing.
> >
> > We don't need to add the test for
> rte_trace_point_generic_is_enabled()==false in rte_trace_is_enabled(),
> because nothing can increase trace.status if no tracepoints exist. (As
> far as I understand.)
>
> OK. I see. IMO, It is not good to expose internal symbol to app/test.
Agree. Fixed in v5.
> How about,
> Changing __rte_trace_point_generic_is_enabled() as
> rte_trace_feature_is_enabled() or similar. This variant is more like
> feature is disabled at compiled time or not? And make it as public and
> use in app/test.
In v5, I have added the public function rte_trace_feature_is_enabled(), which returns true iff the application is built with trace enabled (this is tested using inline), and the DPDK - in case it is built separately - is built with trace enabled (this is compiled with the trace lib's C file).
App/test now uses this function instead of the internal one.
__rte_trace_point_generic_is_enabled() needs to remain static inline, due to the way it is used for omitting trace at build time.
PS: Both trace_autotest and trace_perf_autotest have been tested with and without RTE_TRACE, and they behave as expected.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-06 12:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-18 8:55 [PATCH] " Morten Brørup
2024-09-18 9:49 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-09-18 10:23 ` Morten Brørup
2024-09-19 8:06 ` [PATCH v2] " Morten Brørup
2024-09-19 8:51 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-09-19 13:15 ` Morten Brørup
2024-09-19 13:54 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-09-19 15:35 ` Morten Brørup
2024-09-19 15:49 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-09-19 16:08 ` Morten Brørup
2024-09-19 16:34 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-09-20 9:08 ` [PATCH v3] " Morten Brørup
2024-09-23 8:39 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-09-24 13:50 ` Morten Brørup
2024-09-24 13:39 ` [PATCH v4] " Morten Brørup
2024-09-24 15:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-09-24 15:41 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-09-24 15:53 ` Morten Brørup
2024-09-24 15:57 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-10-01 13:49 ` Morten Brørup
2024-10-01 14:05 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-10-01 14:14 ` Morten Brørup
2024-10-01 15:01 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-10-01 16:01 ` Morten Brørup
2024-10-01 16:06 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-10-01 16:15 ` Morten Brørup
2024-10-02 16:17 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-10-06 12:58 ` Morten Brørup [this message]
2024-10-06 12:38 ` [PATCH v5] " Morten Brørup
2024-10-06 13:58 ` [PATCH v6] " Morten Brørup
2024-10-07 5:45 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-10-07 6:07 ` Morten Brørup
2024-10-06 14:03 ` [PATCH v7] " Morten Brørup
2024-10-06 14:09 ` Morten Brørup
2024-10-07 11:46 ` [PATCH v9] " Morten Brørup
2024-10-08 7:16 ` Morten Brørup
2024-10-08 10:15 ` David Marchand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F77F@smartserver.smartshare.dk \
--to=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
--cc=skori@marvell.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).