> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ankur Dwivedi <adwiv...@marvell.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 4:52 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: tho...@monjalon.net; david.march...@redhat.com; m...@ashroe.eu;
> or...@nvidia.com; ferruh.yi...@amd.com; ch...@att.com;
> humi...@huawei.com; linvi...@tuxdriver.com; ciara.lof...@intel.com;
> qi.z.zh...@intel.com; m...@semihalf.com; m...@semihalf.com;
> shaib...@amazon.com; evge...@amazon.com; igo...@amazon.com;
> cha...@amd.com; Igor Russkikh <irussk...@marvell.com>;
> shepard.sie...@atomicrules.com; ed.cz...@atomicrules.com;
> john.mil...@atomicrules.com; ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com;
> somnath.ko...@broadcom.com; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> <jer...@marvell.com>; Maciej Czekaj [C] <mcze...@marvell.com>; Shijith
> Thotton <sthot...@marvell.com>; Srisivasubramanian Srinivasan
> <sriniva...@marvell.com>; Harman Kalra <hka...@marvell.com>;
> rahul.lakkire...@chelsio.com; johnd...@cisco.com; hyon...@cisco.com;
> liudongdo...@huawei.com; yisen.zhu...@huawei.com;
> xuanziya...@huawei.com; cloud.wangxiao...@huawei.com;
> zhouguoy...@huawei.com; simei...@intel.com; wenjun1...@intel.com;
> qiming.y...@intel.com; yuying.zh...@intel.com; beilei.x...@intel.com;
> xiao.w.w...@intel.com; jingjing...@intel.com; junfeng....@intel.com;
> rosen...@intel.com; Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram
> <ndabilpu...@marvell.com>; Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda
> <kirankum...@marvell.com>; Sunil Kumar Kori <sk...@marvell.com>; Satha
> Koteswara Rao Kottidi <skotesh...@marvell.com>; Liron Himi
> <lir...@marvell.com>; z...@semihalf.com; Radha Chintakuntla
> <rad...@marvell.com>; Veerasenareddy Burru <vbu...@marvell.com>;
> Sathesh B Edara <sed...@marvell.com>; ma...@nvidia.com;
> viachesl...@nvidia.com; lon...@microsoft.com; spin...@cesnet.cz;
> chaoyong...@corigine.com; niklas.soderl...@corigine.com;
> hemant.agra...@nxp.com; sachin.sax...@oss.nxp.com; g.si...@nxp.com;
> apeksha.gu...@nxp.com; sachin.sax...@nxp.com; abo...@pensando.io;
> Rasesh Mody <rm...@marvell.com>; Shahed Shaikh
> <shsha...@marvell.com>; Devendra Singh Rawat
> <dsinghra...@marvell.com>; andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru;
> jiawe...@trustnetic.com; jianw...@trustnetic.com;
> jbehr...@vmware.com; maxime.coque...@redhat.com;
> chenbo....@intel.com; steven.webs...@windriver.com;
> matt.pet...@windriver.com; bruce.richard...@intel.com;
> mtetsu...@gmail.com; gr...@u256.net; jasvinder.si...@intel.com;
> cristian.dumitre...@intel.com; jgraj...@cisco.com;
> m...@smartsharesystems.com; Ankur Dwivedi <adwiv...@marvell.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v5 1/6] eal: trace: add trace point emit for blob
>
> Adds a trace point emit function for emitting a blob. The maximum blob
> bytes which can be captured is maximum value contained in uint16_t, which
> is 65535.
>
> Also adds test case for emit array tracepoint function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ankur Dwivedi <adwiv...@marvell.com>
> ---
> app/test/test_trace.c | 5 +++++
> lib/eal/common/eal_common_trace_points.c | 2 ++
> lib/eal/include/rte_eal_trace.h | 6 ++++++
> lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point_register.h | 7 +++++++
> lib/eal/version.map | 3 +++
> 6 files changed, 40 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_trace.c b/app/test/test_trace.c index
> 6bedf14024..cf781dc25b 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_trace.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_trace.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>
> #include <rte_eal_trace.h>
> #include <rte_lcore.h>
> +#include <rte_random.h>
> #include <rte_trace.h>
>
> #include "test.h"
> @@ -177,6 +178,7 @@ test_fp_trace_points(void) static int
> test_generic_trace_points(void)
> {
> + uint8_t arr[32] = {0};
> int tmp;
>
> rte_eal_trace_generic_void();
> @@ -195,6 +197,9 @@ test_generic_trace_points(void)
> rte_eal_trace_generic_ptr(&tmp);
> rte_eal_trace_generic_str("my string");
> rte_eal_trace_generic_size_t(sizeof(void *));
> + rte_eal_trace_generic_blob(arr, 17);
Do we need this test case now as (rte_rand % 32) will make sure to validate
array of valid size only i.e. 0-31 ?
> + rte_eal_trace_generic_blob(arr, 32);
> + rte_eal_trace_generic_blob(arr, rte_rand() % 32);
When executed trace_autotest then I didn't find 3rd generic.blob trace point.
Can you please explain the behavior ?
> RTE_EAL_TRACE_GENERIC_FUNC;
>
> return TEST_SUCCESS;
> diff --git a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_trace_points.c
> b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_trace_points.c
> index 0b0b254615..051f89809c 100644
> --- a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_trace_points.c
> +++ b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_trace_points.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,8 @@
> RTE_TRACE_POINT_REGISTER(rte_eal_trace_generic_size_t,
> lib.eal.generic.size_t)
> RTE_TRACE_POINT_REGISTER(rte_eal_trace_generic_func,
> lib.eal.generic.func)
> +RTE_TRACE_POINT_REGISTER(rte_eal_trace_generic_blob,
> + lib.eal.generic.blob)
>
> RTE_TRACE_POINT_REGISTER(rte_eal_trace_alarm_set,
> lib.eal.alarm.set)
> diff --git a/lib/eal/include/rte_eal_trace.h b/lib/eal/include/rte_eal_trace.h
> index 5ef4398230..02e3a564a1 100644
> --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_eal_trace.h
> +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_eal_trace.h
> @@ -143,6 +143,12 @@ RTE_TRACE_POINT(
> rte_trace_point_emit_string(func);
> )
>
> +RTE_TRACE_POINT(
> + rte_eal_trace_generic_blob,
> + RTE_TRACE_POINT_ARGS(void *in, uint16_t len),
> + rte_trace_point_emit_blob(in, len);
> +)
> +
> #define RTE_EAL_TRACE_GENERIC_FUNC
> rte_eal_trace_generic_func(__func__)
>
> /* Interrupt */
> diff --git a/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point.h
> b/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point.h
> index 0f8700974f..21b6bf7bf6 100644
> --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point.h
> +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point.h
> @@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ _tp _args \
> #define rte_trace_point_emit_ptr(val)
> /** Tracepoint function payload for string datatype */ #define
> rte_trace_point_emit_string(val)
> +/** Tracepoint function payload for char array */ #define
> +rte_trace_point_emit_blob(val, len)
>
> #endif /* __DOXYGEN__ */
>
> @@ -374,12 +376,27 @@ do { \
> mem = RTE_PTR_ADD(mem,
> __RTE_TRACE_EMIT_STRING_LEN_MAX); \ } while (0)
>
> +#define rte_trace_point_emit_blob(in, len) \ do { \
> + if (unlikely(in == NULL)) \
> + return; \
> + __rte_trace_point_emit(len, uint16_t); \
Just to confirm that is there any typo meaning "in should be used in place of
len here" ?
> + memcpy(mem, in, len); \
> + mem = RTE_PTR_ADD(mem, len); \
Also rte_trace_point_emit copies and increment the memory pointer itself. Then
what is the purpose of above 2 instructions ?
> +} while (0)
> +
> #else
>
> #define __rte_trace_point_emit_header_generic(t) RTE_SET_USED(t)
> #define __rte_trace_point_emit_header_fp(t) RTE_SET_USED(t) #define
> __rte_trace_point_emit(in, type) RTE_SET_USED(in) #define
> rte_trace_point_emit_string(in) RTE_SET_USED(in)
> +#define rte_trace_point_emit_blob(in, len) \ do { \
> + RTE_SET_USED(in); \
> + RTE_SET_USED(len); \
> +} while (0)
> +
>
> #endif /* ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API */
> #endif /* _RTE_TRACE_POINT_REGISTER_H_ */ diff --git
> a/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point_register.h
> b/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point_register.h
> index a32f4d731b..a54f9769da 100644
> --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point_register.h
> +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point_register.h
> @@ -47,6 +47,13 @@ do { \
> RTE_STR(in)"[32]", "string_bounded_t"); \ } while (0)
>
> +#define rte_trace_point_emit_blob(in, len) \ do { \
> + RTE_SET_USED(in); \
> + __rte_trace_point_emit(len, uint16_t); \
> + __rte_trace_point_emit_field(len, RTE_STR(in)"["#len"]",
> +RTE_STR(uint8_t)); \ } while (0)
> +
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> }
> #endif
> diff --git a/lib/eal/version.map b/lib/eal/version.map index
> 7ad12a7dc9..67be24686a 100644
> --- a/lib/eal/version.map
> +++ b/lib/eal/version.map
> @@ -440,6 +440,9 @@ EXPERIMENTAL {
> rte_thread_detach;
> rte_thread_equal;
> rte_thread_join;
> +
> + # added in 23.03
> + __rte_eal_trace_generic_blob;
> };
>
> INTERNAL {
> --
> 2.25.1
