On 21-Mar-19 10:55 AM, Hajkowski wrote:
From: Marcin Hajkowski <marcinx.hajkow...@intel.com>
Use new guest channel API to send confirmation
message for received power command.
Signed-off-by: Marcin Hajkowski <marcinx.hajkow...@intel.com>
---
examples/vm_power_manager/channel_monitor.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/examples/vm_power_manager/channel_monitor.c
b/examples/vm_power_manager/channel_monitor.c
index 1a3a0fa76..df1dc1205 100644
--- a/examples/vm_power_manager/channel_monitor.c
+++ b/examples/vm_power_manager/channel_monitor.c
@@ -627,6 +627,39 @@ apply_policy(struct policy *pol)
apply_workload_profile(pol);
}
+static int
+write_binary_packet(struct channel_packet *pkt, struct channel_info *chan_info)
+{
+ int ret, buffer_len = sizeof(*pkt);
+ void *buffer = pkt;
+
+ if (chan_info->fd == 0) {
Shouldn't this be -1?
+ RTE_LOG(ERR, CHANNEL_MONITOR, "Channel is not connected\n");
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ while (buffer_len > 0) {
+ ret = write(chan_info->fd, buffer, buffer_len);
+ if (ret == -1) {
+ if (errno == EINTR)
+ continue;
Perhaps writing out a debug message with strerror(errno) here?
+ return -1;
+ }
+ buffer = (char *)buffer + ret;
+ buffer_len -= ret;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int
+send_ack_for_received_cmd(struct channel_packet *pkt,
+ struct channel_info *chan_info,
+ uint32_t command)
Too much tabs IMO :)
+{
+ pkt->command = command;
+ return write_binary_packet(pkt, chan_info);
+}
+
static int
process_request(struct channel_packet *pkt, struct channel_info *chan_info)
{
@@ -645,33 +678,55 @@ process_request(struct channel_packet *pkt, struct
channel_info *chan_info)
else
core_num = pkt->resource_id;
+ bool valid_unit = true;
+ int scale_res;
+
switch (pkt->unit) {
case(CPU_POWER_SCALE_MIN):
- power_manager_scale_core_min(core_num);
+ scale_res = power_manager_scale_core_min(core_num);
break;
case(CPU_POWER_SCALE_MAX):
- power_manager_scale_core_max(core_num);
+ scale_res = power_manager_scale_core_max(core_num);
break;
case(CPU_POWER_SCALE_DOWN):
- power_manager_scale_core_down(core_num);
+ scale_res = power_manager_scale_core_down(core_num);
break;
case(CPU_POWER_SCALE_UP):
- power_manager_scale_core_up(core_num);
+ scale_res = power_manager_scale_core_up(core_num);
break;
case(CPU_POWER_ENABLE_TURBO):
- power_manager_enable_turbo_core(core_num);
+ scale_res = power_manager_enable_turbo_core(core_num);
break;
case(CPU_POWER_DISABLE_TURBO):
- power_manager_disable_turbo_core(core_num);
+ scale_res = power_manager_disable_turbo_core(core_num);
break;
default:
+ valid_unit = false;
break;
}
+
+ int ret = -1;
+ if (valid_unit) {
+ ret = send_ack_for_received_cmd(pkt,
+ chan_info,
+ scale_res > 0 ?
+ CPU_POWER_CMD_ACK
+ : CPU_POWER_CMD_NACK);
I think layout like this looks more readable:
ret = send_ack_for_received_cmd(pkt,
chan_info,
scale_res > 0 ?
CPU_POWER_CMD_ACK :
CPU_POWER_CMD_NACK);
Note the two tabs (not three), extra tab for ternary, and colon on the
first line rather than the second one.
+ if (ret < 0)
+ RTE_LOG(DEBUG, CHANNEL_MONITOR, "Error during
sending ack command.\n");
+ } else
+ RTE_LOG(DEBUG, CHANNEL_MONITOR, "Unexpected unit
type.\n");
+
}
if (pkt->command == PKT_POLICY) {
RTE_LOG(INFO, CHANNEL_MONITOR, "Processing policy request %s\n",
pkt->vm_name);
+ int ret = send_ack_for_received_cmd(pkt,
+ chan_info,
+ CPU_POWER_CMD_ACK);
Again, four tabs seems way too much. Two maybe?
+ if (ret < 0)
+ RTE_LOG(DEBUG, CHANNEL_MONITOR, "Error during sending ack
command.\n");
update_policy(pkt);
policy_is_set = 1;
}
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
