>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
>Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 1:59 PM
>To: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com>
>Cc: Tomasz Duszynski <tduszyn...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon
><tho...@monjalon.net>;
>Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; ruifeng.w...@arm.com;
>mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com; zhou...@loongson.cn;
>roret...@linux.microsoft.com
>Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] lib: add generic support for reading PMU
>events
>
>External Email
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 01:29:36PM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
>> > From: Tomasz Duszynski [mailto:tduszyn...@marvell.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, 26 January 2023 10.40
>> >
>> > >From: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com>
>> > >Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:47 AM
>> > >
>> > >> From: Tomasz Duszynski [mailto:tduszyn...@marvell.com]
>> > >> Sent: Friday, 20 January 2023 00.39
>> > >>
>> > >> Add support for programming PMU counters and reading their values
>> > >> in runtime bypassing kernel completely.
>> > >>
>> > >> This is especially useful in cases where CPU cores are isolated
>> > >> (nohz_full) i.e run dedicated tasks. In such cases one cannot use
>> > >> standard perf utility without sacrificing latency and performance.
>> > >>
>> > >> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Duszynski <tduszyn...@marvell.com>
>> > >> ---
>> > >
>> > >If you insist on passing lcore_id around as a function parameter,
>> > >the
>> > function description must
>> > >mention that the lcore_id parameter must be set to rte_lcore_id()
>> > >for
>> > the functions where this is a
>> > >requirement, including all functions that use those functions.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm stating this wrong, so let me try to rephrase:
>>
>> As I understand it, some of the setup functions must be called from the EAL
>> thread that executes
>that function - due to some syscall (SYS_perf_event_open) needing to be called
>from the thread
>itself.
>>
>> Those functions should not take an lcore_id parameter. Otherwise, I would
>> expect to be able to
>call those functions from e.g. the main thread and pass the lcore_id of any
>EAL thread as a
>parameter, which you at the bottom of this email [1] explained is not possible.
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__inbox.dpdk.org_dev
>> _DM4PR18MB4368461EC42603F77A7DC1BCD2E09-40DM4PR18MB4368.namprd18.prod.
>> outlook.com_&d=DwIDAw&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=PZNXgrbjdlXxVEEGYkxIx
>> RndyEUwWU_ad5ce22YI6Is&m=wEvFmuH_S_EhAgRZQTC7z3pQ1Sr_cEsbFAXxgE2Fi2ESd
>> 4sMgg-tgVOVDepp-JYO&s=wU4g1LLV4EHyRYpj2inWOK8MDcUKq7txrZ7RXZhUM2I&e=
>>
>> > >
>> >
>> > Not sure why are you insisting so much on removing that rte_lcore_id().
>> > Yes that macro evaluates
>> > to integer but if you don't think about internals this resembles a
>> > function call.
>>
>> I agree with this argument. And for that reason, passing lcore_id around
>> could be relevant.
>>
>> I only wanted to bring your attention to the low cost of fetching it inside
>> the functions, as an
>alternative to passing it as an argument.
>>
>> >
>> > Then natural pattern is to call it once and reuse results if possible.
>>
>> Yes, and I would usually agree to using this pattern.
>>
>> > Passing lcore_id around
>> > implies that calls are per l-core, why would that confuse anyone
>> > reading that code?
>>
>> This is where I disagree: Passing lcore_id as a parameter to a function does
>> NOT imply that the
>function is running on that lcore!
>>
>> E.g rte_mempool_default_cache(struct rte_mempool *mp, unsigned lcore_id) [2]
>> takes lcore_id as a
>parameter, and does not assume that lcore_id==rte_lcore_id().
>>
>> [2]:
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__elixir.bootlin.co
>> m_dpdk_latest_source_lib_mempool_rte-5Fmempool.h-23L1315&d=DwIDAw&c=nK
>> jWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=PZNXgrbjdlXxVEEGYkxIxRndyEUwWU_ad5ce22YI6Is&m=w
>> EvFmuH_S_EhAgRZQTC7z3pQ1Sr_cEsbFAXxgE2Fi2ESd4sMgg-tgVOVDepp-JYO&s=Ayyj
>> pEtATWUHfWnGMn5j2XDLMjgxxJTh5gQV0m77z5Q&e=
>>
>> >
>> > Besides, all functions taking it are internal stuff hence you cannot
>> > call it elsewhere.
>>
>> OK. I agree that this reduces the risk of incorrect use.
>>
>> Generally, I think that internal functions should be documented too. Not to
>> the full extent, like
>public functions, but some documentation is nice.
>>
>> And if there are special requirements to a function parameter, it should be
>> documented with that
>function. Requiring that the lcore_id parameter must be == rte_lcore_id() is
>certainly a special
>requirement.
>>
>> It might just be me worrying too much, so... If nobody else complains about
>> this, I can live with
>it as is. Assuming that none of the public functions have this special
>requirement (either directly
>or indirectly, by calling functions with the special requirement).
>>
>I would tend to agree with you Morten. If the lcore_id parameter to the
>function must be
>rte_lcore_id(), then I think it's error prone to have that as an explicit
>parameter, and that the
>function should always get the core id itself.
>
>Other possible complication is - how does this work with threads that are not
>pinned to a
>particular physical core? Do things work as expected in that case?
>
It's assumed that once set of counters is enabled on particular l-core then
this thread shouldn't be migrating
back and for the obvious reasons.
But, once scheduled elsewhere all should still work as expected.
>/Bruce
