On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 04:49:31PM +0100, Robin Jarry wrote: > Robin Jarry, Dec 07, 2022 at 17:21: > > Allow applications to register a callback that will be invoked in > > rte_lcore_dump() and when requesting lcore info in the telemetry API. > > > > The callback is expected to return the number of TSC cycles that have > > passed since application start and the number of these cycles that were > > spent doing busy work. > > > > Signed-off-by: Robin Jarry <rja...@redhat.com> > > Acked-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> > > --- > > v3 -> v4: Changed nomenclature: CPU cycles -> TSC cycles > > As you may have noticed, I forgot to add -v4 for that iteration... > > > diff --git a/lib/eal/include/rte_lcore.h b/lib/eal/include/rte_lcore.h > > index 6938c3fd7b81..df7f0a8e07c6 100644 > > --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_lcore.h > > +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_lcore.h > > @@ -328,6 +328,35 @@ typedef int (*rte_lcore_iterate_cb)(unsigned int > > lcore_id, void *arg); > > int > > rte_lcore_iterate(rte_lcore_iterate_cb cb, void *arg); > > > > +/** > > + * Callback to allow applications to report CPU usage. > > + * > > + * @param [in] lcore_id > > + * The lcore to consider. > > + * @param [out] busy_cycles > > + * The amount of busy time since application start, in TSC cycles. > > + * @param [out] total_cycles > > + * The total amount of time since application start, in TSC cycles. > > + * @return > > + * - 0 if both busy and total were set correctly. > > + * - a negative value if the information is not available or if any > > error occurred. > > + */ > > +typedef int (*rte_lcore_usage_cb)( > > + unsigned int lcore_id, uint64_t *busy_cycles, uint64_t *total_cycles); > > Instead of two uint64_t pointers, I was thinking a better approach would > be to pass a pointer to a struct containing these two fields. That way > it leaves room for adding more counters if need be. And do so without > breaking the ABI. > > Thoughts?
yes, please.
