From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: change mbuf allocation logs to debug
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:49:34 +0800
Message-ID: <20170330014934.GL18844@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <20170327162930.54281-1-allain.legacy@windriver.com>
 <20170328064841.GZ18844@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968F8CC8@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com>
 <20170329070150.GF18844@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968FA875@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "mtetsuyah@gmail.com" <mtetsuyah@gmail.com>,
 "maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Peters, Matt" <Matt.Peters@windriver.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: "Legacy, Allain" <Allain.Legacy@windriver.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36D7FC24
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 03:51:56 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968FA875@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:45:55PM +0000, Legacy, Allain wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:02 AM
> 
> <...>
> > 
> > OTOH, it's still good to have RTE_LOG_ONCE. It explicitly tells you something
> > is wrong, then you could dump those stats for more info.
> 
> Has the implementation of something like RTE_LOG_ONCE been discussed before?  

No. It's just something comes to my mind after saw your patch.

> Do you have a proposal on what you would find acceptable as an implementation that considers multiples threads, multiple devices, multiple logs per file, etc.?

No, that would be way to complex. Something I thought of is quite
simple (like what Linux kernel does):

	#define RTE_LOG_ONCE(...)	do {	\
		static int warned;		\
		if (!warned) {			\
			RTE_LOG(...);		\
			warned = 1;		\
		}				\
	} while (0)


And yes, I know it's far away from being perfect (and accurate, regarding
to multiple devices and so on as you mentioned). Even though, I think
it's much better than showing nothing when something goes wrong.

	--yliu