On (02/03/24 04:57), Rahul Gupta wrote: > Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:57:49 -0800 > From: Rahul Gupta <rahulg...@linux.microsoft.com> > To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Cc: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>, dev@dpdk.org, > bruce.richard...@intel.com, dmitry.kozl...@gmail.com, > step...@networkplumber.org, sovar...@linux.microsoft.com, > ok...@kernel.org, sujithsan...@microsoft.com, > sowmini.varad...@microsoft.com, krathina...@microsoft.com, > rahulrgupt...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] eal: refactor rte_eal_init into > sub-functions > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) > > On (02/02/24 11:21), Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 11:21:59 +0100 > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > To: Rahul Gupta <rahulg...@linux.microsoft.com> > > Cc: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>, dev@dpdk.org, > > bruce.richard...@intel.com, dmitry.kozl...@gmail.com, > > step...@networkplumber.org, sovar...@linux.microsoft.com, > > ok...@kernel.org, sujithsan...@microsoft.com, > > sowmini.varad...@microsoft.com, krathina...@microsoft.com, > > rahulrgupt...@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] eal: refactor rte_eal_init into > > sub-functions > > > > 29/01/2024 08:55, David Marchand: > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 6:35 AM Rahul Gupta > > > <rahulg...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > > Looking at what this patch does.. I am under the impression all you > > > > > really need is rte_eal_init without initial probing. > > > > > Such behavior can probably be achieved with a allowlist set to a non > > > > > existing device (like for example "-a 0000:00:00.0"), then later, use > > > > > device hotplug. > > > > The patch will be useful to all the adapters irrespective of their > > > > host plug support. > > > > > > I did not say hotplug support is needed. > > > If what I described already works, this patch adds nothing. > > > > I agree with David. > > Disabling initial probing should provide what you want. > > Did you test his proposal? > > > > > Yes, I was about to reply after testing same, will be done with testing in > few days. > But I think the bootup time saved by my patch and hot plug patch will be > almost same, > because apart from FLR (probe()) the extra work done by my patch (i.e. > telemetry, > rte_service_init() in parallel to mbuf pool creation) are consuming very less > bootup time. > So in future if more things are added to 2nd part of eal_init (i.e. > rte_eal_init_async_setup()), > then the bootup time will be less if we use my patch. > I think we can defer this patch till then. > > Thanks, > Rahul.
Initial tests looks ok wrt application bootup time saving by using the hot plug APIs and so we may not need the patch for rte_eal_init(). Thanks for revewing patch and suggestions. Thanks, Rahul.
