> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2023 3:04 PM
> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> Cc: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Aman Singh
> <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> <jer...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] app/testpmd: add trace save command
>
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 5:23 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/23/2023 9:00 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> > > Hi, Ferruh
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 2:16 PM
> > >> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Aman
> > >> Singh <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>
> > >> Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] app/testpmd: add trace save command
> > >>
> > >> On 6/13/2023 5:58 PM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> > >>> The "save_trace" CLI command is added to trigger saving the trace
> > >>> dumps to the trace directory.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Viacheslav,
> > >>
> > >> Trace is already saved when dpdk application terminated, I guess
> > >> this is to save the trace before exiting the application, what is
> > >> the use case for this, can you please detail in the commit log.
> > >
> > > OK, will update the commit log. The command "save_trace" is useful
> > > in some dynamic debug scenarios to save the trace without restarting the
> entire application.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> And what happens if this is called multiple times, or what happens
> > >> on the application exit, will it overwrite the file or fail?
> > > It overwrites.
> > >
> > >> Again please explain in the commit log.
> > > Sure, will do.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 38
> > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Can you please update documentation too?
> > >>
> > >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c index
> > >>> a15a442a06..db71ce2028 100644
> > >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> > >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> > >>> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
> > >>> #include <rte_gro.h>
> > >>> #endif
> > >>> #include <rte_mbuf_dyn.h>
> > >>> +#include <rte_trace.h>
> > >>>
> > >>> #include <cmdline_rdline.h>
> > >>> #include <cmdline_parse.h>
> > >>> @@ -12745,6 +12746,40 @@ static cmdline_parse_inst_t
> > >> cmd_config_tx_affinity_map = {
> > >>> },
> > >>> };
> > >>>
> > >>> +#ifndef RTE_EXEC_ENV_WINDOWS
> > >>> +/* *** SAVE_TRACE *** */
> > >>> +
> > >>> +struct cmd_save_trace_result {
> > >>> + cmdline_fixed_string_t save;
> > >>> +};
> > >>> +
> > >>> +static void cmd_save_trace_parsed(__rte_unused void *parsed_result,
> > >>> + __rte_unused struct cmdline *cl,
> > >>> + __rte_unused void *data) {
> > >>> + int rc;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + rc = rte_trace_save();
> > >>> + if (rc)
> > >>> + printf("Save trace failed with error: %d\n", rc);
> > >>> + else
> > >>> + printf("Trace saved successfully\n"); }
> > >>> +
> > >>> +static cmdline_parse_token_string_t cmd_save_trace_save =
> > >>> + TOKEN_STRING_INITIALIZER(struct cmd_save_trace_result, save,
> > >>> +"save_trace");
> > >>> +
> > >>
> > >> We have dump_* commands, what do you think to have 'dump_trace'
> > >> command for this?
> > > It was initially (in v1) with "dump_trace" command.
> > > And there is the comment by Jerin:
> > > https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/CALBAE1Of79a_jHnFT3KX--Enhud-
> h5RzL02TMQBs
> > > mow721d...@mail.gmail.com/#t
> > >
> > > So, I have changed to "save_trace". I have no strong opinion about
> command name, any allowing trace save is OK for me.
> > >
> >
> > Ah, I missed that.
> >
> >
> > @Jerin,
> > I just saw your comment, agree more exact action can be 'save' but
> > 'dump' also describes enough.
> > Since there are existing 'dump_*' commands, it makes command more
> > intuitive and easy to remember.
> >
> > As an active user of testpmd myself, I am finding it hard to
> > remember/find the command I need as number of commands increased.
> That
> > is why I am paying extra attention to have more hierarchical,
> > consistent and intuitive commands.
> >
> > For me "dump_trace" works better in that manner, what do you think, do
> > you have strong opinion on 'save_trace'?
>
> dump_* commands dumping on stdout or FILE.
> Trace is mostly saving "current trace buffer" it and internally it figure out
> the
> FILE.
> But no strong opinion, if testpmd user thinks "dump" is better.
I think "dump_trace" would be more intuitive and do no not overwhelm the
testpmd code
with supporting new "save_trace". So, I vote to revert to "dump_trace", don't
you mind?
With best regards,
Slava
