[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/4]: Implement module information export

David Marchand david.marchand at 6wind.com
Wed May 4 10:24:18 CEST 2016


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:39:47PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>> Hey-
>>       So a few days ago we were reviewing Davids patch series to introduce the
>> abiilty to dump hardware support from pmd DSO's in a human readable format.
>> That effort encountered some problems, most notably the fact that stripping a
>> DSO removed the required information that the proposed tool keyed off, as well
>> as the need to dead reckon offsets between symbols that may not be constant
>> (dependent on architecture).
>>
>>       I was going to start looking into the possibility of creating a modinfo
>> section in a simmilar fashion to what kernel modules do in linux or BSD.  I
>> decided to propose this solution instead though, because the kernel style
>> solution requires a significant amount of infrastructure that I think we can
>> maybe avoid maintaining, if we accept some minor caviats
>>
>> To do this We emit a set of well known marker symbols for each DSO that an
>> external application can search for (in this case I called them
>> this_pmd_driver<n>, where n is a counter macro).  These marker symbols are
>> n is a counter macro).  These marker symbols are exported by PMDs for
>> external access.  External tools can then access these symbols via the
>> dlopen/dlsym api (or via elfutils libraries)
>>
>> The symbols above alias the rte_driver struct for each PMD, and the external
>> application can then interrogate the registered driver information.
>>
>> I also add a pointer to the pci id table struct for each PMD so that we can
>> export hardware support.
>>
>> This approach has a few pros and cons:
>>
>> pros:
>> 1) Its simple, and doesn't require extra infrastructure to implement.  E.g. we
>> don't need a new tool to extract driver information and emit the C code to build
>> the binary data for the special section, nor do we need a custom linker script
>> to link said special section in place
>>
>> 2) Its stable.  Because the marker symbols are explicitly exported, this
>> approach is resilient against stripping.
>>
>> cons:
>> 1) It creates an artifact in that PMD_REGISTER_DRIVER has to be used in one
>> compilation unit per DSO.  As an example em and igb effectively merge two
>> drivers into one DSO, and the uses of PMD_REGISTER_DRIVER occur in two separate
>> C files for the same single linked DSO.  Because of the use of the __COUNTER__
>> macro we get multiple definitions of the same marker symbols.
>>
>> I would make the argument that the downside of the above artifact isn't that big
>> a deal.  Traditionally in other projects a unit like a module (or DSO in our
>> case) only ever codifies a single driver (e.g. module_init() in the linux kernel
>> is only ever used once per built module).  If we have code like igb/em that
>> shares some core code, we should build the shared code to object files and link
>> them twice, once to an em.so pmd and again to an igb.so pmd.
>>
>> But regardless, I thought I would propose this to see what you all thought of
>> it.
>>
>> FWIW, heres sample output of the pmdinfo tool from this series probing the
>> librte_pmd_ena.so module:
>>
>> [nhorman at hmsreliant dpdk]$ ./build/app/pmdinfo
>> ~/git/dpdk/build/lib/librte_pmd_ena.so
>> PMD 0 Information:
>> Driver Name: ena_driver
>> Driver Type: PCI
>> |====================PCI Table========================|
>> | VENDOR ID | DEVICE ID | SUBVENDOR ID | SUBDEVICE ID |
>> |-----------------------------------------------------|
>> |       1d0f|       ec20|          ffff|          ffff|
>> |       1d0f|       ec21|          ffff|          ffff|
>> |-----------------------------------------------------|
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Ping, thoughts here?

- This implementation does not support binaries, so it is not suitable
for people who don't want dso, this is partially why I used bfd rather
than just dlopen.
- The name of the tool "pmdinfo" is likely to cause problems, I would
say we need to prefix t with dpdk.
- How does it behave if we strip the dsos ?
- Using __COUNTER__ seeems a bit tricky to me, can't this cause misalignments ?
- The tool output format is not script friendly from my pov.


-- 
David Marchand


More information about the dev mailing list