Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] eal: refactor rte_eal_init into sub-functions

[Rahul Gupta <rahulgupt@linux.microsoft.com>]

On (02/03/24 04:57), Rahul Gupta wrote:
> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:57:49 -0800
> From: Rahul Gupta <rahulgupt@linux.microsoft.com>
> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Cc: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
>  bruce.richardson@intel.com, dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com,
>  stephen@networkplumber.org, sovaradh@linux.microsoft.com,
>  okaya@kernel.org, sujithsankar@microsoft.com,
>  sowmini.varadhan@microsoft.com, krathinavel@microsoft.com,
>  rahulrgupta27@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 <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > To: Rahul Gupta <rahulgupt@linux.microsoft.com>
> > Cc: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
> >  bruce.richardson@intel.com, dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com,
> >  stephen@networkplumber.org, sovaradh@linux.microsoft.com,
> >  okaya@kernel.org, sujithsankar@microsoft.com,
> >  sowmini.varadhan@microsoft.com, krathinavel@microsoft.com,
> >  rahulrgupta27@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
> > > <rahulgupt@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.