[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] Patch introducing API to read/write Intel Architecture Model Specific Registers (MSR)...
konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Fri Jan 22 12:05:03 CET 2016
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Panu Matilainen [mailto:pmatilai at redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 10:06 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Andralojc, WojciechX
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] Patch introducing API to read/write Intel Architecture Model Specific Registers (MSR)...
> On 01/21/2016 12:51 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > Hi Panu,
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Panu Matilainen
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 10:39 AM
> >> To: Andralojc, WojciechX
> >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] Patch introducing API to read/write Intel Architecture Model Specific Registers (MSR)...
> >> On 01/21/2016 10:18 AM, Wojciech Andralojc wrote:
> >>> Patch reworked.
> >>> Signed-off-by: Wojciech Andralojc <wojciechx.andralojc at intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_msr.h | 88 +++++++++++++++++
> >>> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 1 +
> >>> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/arch/x86/rte_msr.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 3 files changed, 205 insertions(+)
> >>> create mode 100644 lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_msr.h
> >>> create mode 100644 lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/arch/x86/rte_msr.c
> >> This creates a new arch-specific public API, with rte_msr.h installed as
> >> a public header and implementation in the library (as opposed to
> >> inline), and so the new functions would have to be added to
> >> rte_eal_version.map.
> >> However that is a bit of a problem since it only exists on IA
> >> architectures, so it'd mean dummy entries in the version map for all
> >> other architectures. All the other arch-specific APIs are inline code so
> >> this is the first of its kind.
> > My thought was:
> > 1. implementation is linux specific (as I know not supposed to work under freebsd).
> > 2. they are not supposed to be used at run-time cide-path, so no need to be inlined.
> Speed is not the only interesting attribute of inlining, inlined code
> also effectively escapes the library ABI so it does not need versioning
> / exporting.
> > 3. As I understand we plan to have a library that will use these functions anyway.
> Is this library going to be a generic or specific to Intel CPUs?
As I understand - yes.
It supposed to utilise new Intel chips CAT abilities.
Wojciech, please correct me if I missed something here.
> Also, if there are no other uses for the MSR API at the moment, perhaps
> the best place for this code would be within that library anyway?
Sounds good to me.
> > About dummy entries in the .map file: if we'll create a 'weak' generic implementation,
> > that would just return an error - would it solve the issue?
> Sure it'd solve the issue of dummy entries in .map but people seemed
> opposed to having a highly arch-specific API exposed to all architectures.
> - Panu -
More information about the dev