From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743F3A04BB; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:39:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2101252; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:39:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A037211A4 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:39:47 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1601977186; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=oKgIyNM7315kl3T8frVzdht6q5HGRjtnrM7cp1xIOsM=; b=Py8clP2xon3wUdaHhnuvqm2XFHTOPFTjsIdkMld8rk0z9w1tTTxaVC980zBadpDuGP+gWz RpXUEoNxaFw3SSMBLGYt+cj9VfPNlyyUa6j5+pbAkdcLy+smXRUWFjoifA0abs5WAI+YYs cYl3Phu58Pn8+be7lXW008aLbCWT8VU= Received: from mail-vs1-f71.google.com (mail-vs1-f71.google.com [209.85.217.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-375-rQVTdKsvPRebmSMrfGL_og-1; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 05:39:44 -0400 X-MC-Unique: rQVTdKsvPRebmSMrfGL_og-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f71.google.com with SMTP id r10so568163vsq.7 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 02:39:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oKgIyNM7315kl3T8frVzdht6q5HGRjtnrM7cp1xIOsM=; b=AWjlPIvbior7Eb0pGQ472FtsPOIE8eB1DExD9U+tXpC+eBeyCZkRb6Fr5V3VoVSazx npjj8zr+6YlSNpJhHSzVG+RJgbv0DR2a3bmwCOSzasnuhQjV3iCIfn69ViQy7U6usisZ jHc2x3Dcki87oFsoO5aD5oICUp3Qxcj4LN74p2WG12M6mDTbNlpy7PEYpxchZNIOviBG mHn5wCBNVffyUXbmG79WyeLSpux6xIrGXZ9xRcEY3liwBqTbEthVLn4Iti72x6Jbz/AP VhRx8CjTVWtOPO0om78HI7PECVSulM0DJslVIbjusN5YTiWWsgSD9e3rNuBWJFLw3ycF 807A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532FI57K979QNTIgxPoPj4NR1ZGoXV2E6nHXMW+9XZV0M0sXhZZz ZlR/ryEHPQgNOsF6sqBfEWSQyNWVPRJ7nx1YOTNIugIoaF1/DiwBPUBXxTYkQyjvhhzbmfhkxQ0 o2thilz9EzVwJ0hg0aGQ= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:e942:: with SMTP id g63mr2171563vkh.18.1601977183852; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 02:39:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx02f7WPYTM3eR7lS2+lq9FiGN6wPVF4EsZDZfiLwcedz/p8yxgPfPVWX+A7/0K++TIKXqihqoNNPvCHhqSbaQ= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:e942:: with SMTP id g63mr2171555vkh.18.1601977183610; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 02:39:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1601928154-26051-1-git-send-email-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:39:32 +0200 Message-ID: To: Sunil Kumar Kori , Timothy McDaniel Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , dev , Erik Gabriel Carrillo , Gage Eads , Van Haaren Harry Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/1] eal: increase TRACE CTF SIZE to recommended size 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:22 AM Sunil Kumar Kori wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 10:16 PM Timothy McDaniel > > wrote: > >> > >> Increase TRACE_CTF_FIELD_SIZE to 448, the recommended size. > > > >Repeating the same sentence in the title and the commitlog does not give > >much info. > > > >Plus, what is this "recommendation"? > When analyzed this issue, only one more byte was needed to fix this issue= but in future similar issue can occur again. > So increasing this value by 64 bytes which actually equals to a cache lin= e. That=E2=80=99s why we have suggested this size. 384 is aligned to both 64 and 128 bytes cache lines. 448 is only aligned to 64 bytes. Should we care about 128 bytes cache lines systems? > > > > > > >> Fixes "CTF field is too long" error when running with trace enabled. > > > >Ok, you hit this limit, but it would help to get some context here. > >Looking at this patch in the future, we won't know why it was necessary. How about following commitlog: """ trace: increase trace point buffer size The current buffer size is not big enough to accomodate traces for new additions in the eventdev subsystem. Increase this buffer size by XXX for reason YYY. """ --=20 David Marchand