Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/7] app/proc-info: provide way to request info on owned ports

[Subendu Santra <subendu@arista.com>]

Agreed. I will change it to uint64_t and send it for review.
Thanks for your help.

Regards,
Subendu.


On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:32 AM Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 14:39:05 +0530
> Subendu Santra <subendu@arista.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Stephen, Thomas,
> >
> > On a related note w.r.to commit 1dd6cffb6571f816d5a0d1fd620f43532240b40b
> > (app/procinfo: provide way to request info on owned ports), we see this
> > change:
> >
> > -static uint32_t enabled_port_mask;
> > > +static unsigned long enabled_port_mask;
> >
> >
> > While this is ok for 64-bit machines, where unsigned long is 64-bit, on
> > 32-bit machines unsigned long is 32-bits.
> > Should we change this to unsigned long long which is guaranteed to be
> > 64-bits on both architectures?
> >
> > Specifying a mask of 0xffffffffffffffff on 32-bit platforms results in
> > error:
> >
> > > + sudo /usr/share/dpdk/tools/dpdk-procinfo -- --show-port -p
> > > 0xffffffffffffffff
> > > Invalid portmask '0xffffffffffffffff'
> >
> >
> > We have a script that runs periodically and it uses the dpdk-procinfo tool
> > to collect information about the ports.
> > It will be ideal to use the same portmask in the script irrespective of the
> > platform it runs on.
> >
> > Kindly share your thoughts on this.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Subendu.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:18 PM Stephen Hemminger <
> > stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 03 May 2022 10:47:58 +0200
> > > Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 24/04/2022 07:34, Subendu Santra:
> > > > > Hi Stephen,
> > > > >
> > > > > We were going through the patch set:
> > > https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200715212228.28010-7-stephen@networkplumber.org/
> > > and hoping to get clarification on the behaviour if post mask is not
> > > specified in the input to `dpdk-proc-info` tool.
> > > > >
> > > > > Specifically, In PATCH v3 6/7, we see this:
> > > > > +   /* If no port mask was specified, one will be provided */
> > > > > +   if (enabled_port_mask == 0) {
> > > > > +           RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i) {
> > > > > +                   enabled_port_mask |= 1u << i;
> > > > >
> > > > > However, in PATCH v4 8/8, we see this:
> > > > > +   /* If no port mask was specified, then show non-owned ports */
> > > > > +   if (enabled_port_mask == 0) {
> > > > > +           RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i)
> > > > > +                   enabled_port_mask = 1ul << i;
> > > > > +   }
> > > > >
> > > > > Was there any specific reason to show just the last non-owned port in
> > > case the port mask was not specified?
> > > > > Should we show all non-owned ports in case the user doesn’t specify
> > > any port mask?
> > > >
> > > > It looks like a bug. It should be |=
> > > > Feel free to send a fix.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agree. Thats a bug.
> > >
> > > It would be good to have a "show all ports" flag to proc-info.
> > > To show all ports including owned.
> > >
>
> Using uint64_t is better, but eventually many DPDK utilities need to be
> fixed to handle > 64 ports.