17/02/2023 10:44, fengchengwen: > On 2023/2/16 20:54, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 08:42:34PM +0800, fengchengwen wrote: > >> On 2023/2/16 20:06, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >>> On 2/16/2023 11:53 AM, fengchengwen wrote: > >>>> On 2023/2/15 11:19, Dongdong Liu wrote: > >>>>> Hi Chengwen > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2023/2/9 10:32, Chengwen Feng wrote: > >>>>>> The xstats reset is useful for debugging, so add it to the ethdev > >>>>>> telemetry command lists. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengcheng...@huawei.com> > >>>>> This patch looks good, so > >>>>> Reviewed-by: Dongdong Liu <liudongdo...@huawei.com> > >>>>> > >>>>> A minior question > >>>>> Do we need to support stats reset ? > >>>> > >>>> Stats is contained by xstats, and future direction I think is xstats. > >>>> So I think we don't need support stats reset. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I have similar question with Dongdong, readonly values are safe for > >>> telemetry, but modifying data can be more tricky since we don't have > >>> locking in ethdev APIs, this can cause concurrency issues. > >> > >> Yes, it indeed has concurrency issues. > >> > >>> > >>> Overall do we want telemetry go that way and become something that > >>> alters ethdev data/config? > >> > >> There are at least two part of data: config and status. > >> For stats (which belong status data) could help for debugging, I think > >> it's acceptable. > >> > >> As for concurrency issues. People should know what to do and when to do, > >> just like > >> the don't invoke config API (e.g. dev_configure/dev_start/...) concurrency. > >> > > While this is probably ok for now, I think in next release we should look > > to add some sort of support for locking for destructive ops in a future > > release. For example, we could: > > > > 1. Add support for marking a callback as "destructive" and only allow it to > > be called if only one connection is present or > > > > 2. Make it possible for callbacks to query the number of connections so > > that the callback itself is non-destructive in more than one connection is > > open. > > > > [Both of these will require locking support so that new connections aren't > > openned when the callback is in-flight!] > > Except telemetry, the application may have other console could execute DPDK > API. > So I think trying to keep it simple, it's up to the user to invoke.
No, the user should not be responsible for concurrency issues. We can ask the app developper to take care, but not to the user who has no control on what happens in the app. On a more general note, I feel the expansion of telemetry is not controlled enough. I would like to stop on adding more telemetry until we have a clear guideline about what is telemetry for and how to use it.
