On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:52:03PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 19/01/2021 22:31, Tyler Retzlaff: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:19:55PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > Not sure it makes sense without the new telemetry feature. > > > Please focus on telemetry lib instead of half-enabling > > > the old metrics lib. > > > > > > > can you elaborate? (or reference a mailing list discussion) that gives some > > guidance? > > > > is the telemetry lib a replacement for metrics? the component we have now > > relies on the non-telemetry functions exported from metrics but does not > > use the telemetry functions. > > > > also, i notice that the meson.build for telemetry lib has an include path > > that references rte_metrics but does not appear to actually include any of > > the headers from rte_metrics (vestigial? missed in previous cleanup > > perhaps?) > > I think Bruce and Ciara will better explain than me > the intent of the telemetry lib and the compatibility path with the metrics > lib. >
The include path addition for metrics to the telemetry library does indeed look like it was just missed being removed, since I can compile things up successfully with it removed. With regards to interaction between telemetry library and metrics library, they are complementary but not replacements for each other. The metrics library provides support for tracking metrics, mostly on a per-port basis. The original telemetry library implementation was based on top of the metrics library and supported reporting out data from that library. More recent versions of the telemetry library have reworked that support to allow the reporting of arbitrary telemetry data, not just from the metrics library, but the old interface is still supported. /Bruce
