[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: added make target to print out system info

[Olivier MATZ]

On 03/25/2015 04:22 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:06:10PM +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 03/24/2015 06:00 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:52:59PM +0000, John McNamara wrote:
>>>> Added a 'make system_info' target to print out system info
>>>> related to DPDK. This is intended as output that can be
>>>> attached to bug reports.
>>>> ---
>>>>   mk/rte.sdkroot.mk | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mk/rte.sdkroot.mk b/mk/rte.sdkroot.mk
>>>> index e8423b0..b477d09 100644
>>>> --- a/mk/rte.sdkroot.mk
>>>> +++ b/mk/rte.sdkroot.mk
>>>> @@ -123,3 +123,36 @@ examples examples_clean:
>>>>   %:
>>>>   	$(Q)$(MAKE) -f $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.sdkconfig.mk checkconfig
>>>>   	$(Q)$(MAKE) -f $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.sdkbuild.mk $@
>>>> +
>>>> +.PHONY: system_info
>>>> +system_info:
>>>> +	$(Q)echo
>>>> +	$(Q)echo "CC version"
>>>> +	$(Q)echo "=========="
>>>> +	$(Q)$(CC) --version
>>>> +	$(Q)echo
>>>> +
>>>> +	$(Q)echo "DPDK version"
>>>> +	$(Q)echo "============"
>>>> +	$(Q)$(MAKE) showversion
>>>> +	$(Q)echo
>>>> +
>>>> +	$(Q)echo "Git commit"
>>>> +	$(Q)echo "=========="
>>>> +	$(Q)git log --pretty=format:'%H' -1
>>>> +	$(Q)echo
>>>> +
>>>> +	$(Q)echo "Uname"
>>>> +	$(Q)echo "====="
>>>> +	$(Q)uname -srvmpio
>>>> +	$(Q)echo
>>>> +
>>>> +	$(Q)echo "Hugepages"
>>>> +	$(Q)echo "========="
>>>> +	$(Q)grep -i huge /proc/meminfo
>>>> +	$(Q)echo
>>>> +
>>>> +	$(Q)tools/cpu_layout.py
>>>> +
>>>> +	$(Q)tools/dpdk_nic_bind.py --status
>>>> +	$(Q)echo
>>>> --
>>>> 1.8.1.4
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nak, for a few reasons:
>>>
>>> 1) While this target is in a common makefile, at least some of the information
>>> it gathers is operating system specfic (e.g. /proc/meminfo).  This isn't going
>>> to work on BSD, or other operating systems that we might support in the future
>>>
>>> 2) This is tied to the build system.  Theres no guarantee that users will
>>> diagnose problems only on the system that they built the DPDK on.
>>>
>>> A better solution might be to simply document the sort of information that a bug
>>> reporter is expected to gather, along with some sample tools for doing so.
>>> There are numerous tools to get the above information, both in isolation and in
>>> aggregate.
>>
>> I agree with Neil that the Makefile is probably not the best place to
>> put that because the target machine may not be the build machine. What
>> about doing the same in a script? Therefore it could be embedded and
>> executed on the target.
>>
> A script would be fine, as long as its cased for tools available on every OS.
>
>> Neil, you talk about tools that do the same kind of things. What tool
>> are you thinking about? The problem of using external tools is that it
>> adds a dependency with them.
>>
> Yes, but how is that different from the above?  running cat /proc/meminfo has a
> dependency on the existance of /proc/meminfo, which is involate on BSD.  Theres
> another file there that hold simmilar memory information, though, or perhaps a
> memstat tool (I cant recall which).  The point being, to have an appropriate bug
> reporting tool like this, you need to determine what information you need, then
> for each operating system you have to do the right things to get it, be that
> read a file, run a tool, or some other operation.

Agree, there's no guarantee that /proc/some/file exists on a linux
distribution as there is no guarantee that an application is available.

For instance, using applications that are packaged in coreutils or
procps should not be an issue. But I would say that using applications
included in specific packages should be avoided, and in this case
the /proc interface can be better.

Regards,
Olivier