From: "Robin Jarry" <rjarry@redhat.com>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"Jerin Jacob" <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, "Jerin Jacob" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"Kiran Kumar K" <kirankumark@marvell.com>,
"Nithin Dabilpuram" <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>,
"Zhirun Yan" <yanzhirun_163@163.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH dpdk 1/2] graph: always count objects and calls
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2025 12:47:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DETNTVDMT8U6.307XVRW7VTBIE@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35F655C8@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
Morten Brørup, Dec 09, 2025 at 12:13:
> Looking at patch 2/2, I disagree with the approach.
>
> RTE_LIBRTE_GRAPH_STATS should control all stats, incl. total_calls and
> total_objs. Then, if enabled, the total_cycles stats can be controlled
> by rte_graph_cycle_stats_enable().
>
> Your v1 series introduces unnecessary overhead for applications not
> caring about total_calls/total_objs stats and thus built without
> RTE_LIBRTE_GRAPH_STATS.
My issue is that I would like the total_objs stat but without the
overhead of rte_rdtsc() being called twice for every node visit.
And also, I would like to be able to enable/disable these stats *at
runtime*. Having it behind a compile time constant makes it very not
flexible.
I could have two booleans to control whether total_calls/total_objs are
updated *and* whether total_cycles are computed. But that seems a bit
overkill and it would mean two fields to check (two branches) instead of
one per node.
Is it really that bad to update two uint64_t counters?
--
Robin
> Your canceled check is your receipt.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-09 11:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-09 8:50 [PATCH dpdk 0/2] Flexible graph nodes stats collection Robin Jarry
2025-12-09 8:50 ` [PATCH dpdk 1/2] graph: always count objects and calls Robin Jarry
2025-12-09 9:09 ` Jerin Jacob
2025-12-09 9:12 ` Robin Jarry
2025-12-09 11:13 ` Morten Brørup
2025-12-09 11:47 ` Robin Jarry [this message]
2025-12-09 12:11 ` Morten Brørup
2025-12-09 12:45 ` Robin Jarry
2025-12-09 13:45 ` Morten Brørup
2025-12-09 14:47 ` Robin Jarry
2025-12-09 8:50 ` [PATCH dpdk 2/2] graph: allow enabling/disabling node visit cycles collection Robin Jarry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DETNTVDMT8U6.307XVRW7VTBIE@redhat.com \
--to=rjarry@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
--cc=kirankumark@marvell.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=ndabilpuram@marvell.com \
--cc=yanzhirun_163@163.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).