From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21D5A04B3; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:37:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A741C0D1; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:37:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3B21C0CF for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:37:50 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Nov 2019 03:37:49 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,281,1569308400"; d="scan'208";a="377742055" Received: from fyigit-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.96]) ([10.237.221.96]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2019 03:37:43 -0800 To: Matan Azrad , Dekel Peled , "john.mcnamara@intel.com" , "marko.kovacevic@intel.com" , "nhorman@tuxdriver.com" , "ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com" , "somnath.kotur@broadcom.com" , "anatoly.burakov@intel.com" , "xuanziyang2@huawei.com" , "cloud.wangxiaoyun@huawei.com" , "zhouguoyang@huawei.com" , "wenzhuo.lu@intel.com" , "konstantin.ananyev@intel.com" , Shahaf Shuler , Slava Ovsiienko , "rmody@marvell.com" , "shshaikh@marvell.com" , "maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" , "tiwei.bie@intel.com" , "zhihong.wang@intel.com" , "yongwang@vmware.com" , Thomas Monjalon , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" , "jingjing.wu@intel.com" , "bernard.iremonger@intel.com" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" References: <4c64b7941e1e9416ae7946cb44d50a01888d70c4.1573129825.git.dekelp@mellanox.com> <0523c7d7-bc97-7e30-c024-e578f9548797@intel.com> From: Ferruh Yigit Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=ferruh.yigit@intel.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFXZCFABEADCujshBOAaqPZpwShdkzkyGpJ15lmxiSr3jVMqOtQS/sB3FYLT0/d3+bvy qbL9YnlbPyRvZfnP3pXiKwkRoR1RJwEo2BOf6hxdzTmLRtGtwWzI9MwrUPj6n/ldiD58VAGQ +iR1I/z9UBUN/ZMksElA2D7Jgg7vZ78iKwNnd+vLBD6I61kVrZ45Vjo3r+pPOByUBXOUlxp9 GWEKKIrJ4eogqkVNSixN16VYK7xR+5OUkBYUO+sE6etSxCr7BahMPKxH+XPlZZjKrxciaWQb +dElz3Ab4Opl+ZT/bK2huX+W+NJBEBVzjTkhjSTjcyRdxvS1gwWRuXqAml/sh+KQjPV1PPHF YK5LcqLkle+OKTCa82OvUb7cr+ALxATIZXQkgmn+zFT8UzSS3aiBBohg3BtbTIWy51jNlYdy ezUZ4UxKSsFuUTPt+JjHQBvF7WKbmNGS3fCid5Iag4tWOfZoqiCNzxApkVugltxoc6rG2TyX CmI2rP0mQ0GOsGXA3+3c1MCdQFzdIn/5tLBZyKy4F54UFo35eOX8/g7OaE+xrgY/4bZjpxC1 1pd66AAtKb3aNXpHvIfkVV6NYloo52H+FUE5ZDPNCGD0/btFGPWmWRmkPybzColTy7fmPaGz cBcEEqHK4T0aY4UJmE7Ylvg255Kz7s6wGZe6IR3N0cKNv++O7QARAQABtCVGZXJydWggWWln aXQgPGZlcnJ1aC55aWdpdEBpbnRlbC5jb20+iQJUBBMBCgA+AhsDAh4BAheABQsJCAcDBRUK CQgLBRYCAwEAFiEE0jZTh0IuwoTjmYHH+TPrQ98TYR8FAl1meboFCQlupOoACgkQ+TPrQ98T YR9ACBAAv2tomhyxY0Tp9Up7mNGLfEdBu/7joB/vIdqMRv63ojkwr9orQq5V16V/25+JEAD0 60cKodBDM6HdUvqLHatS8fooWRueSXHKYwJ3vxyB2tWDyZrLzLI1jxEvunGodoIzUOtum0Ce gPynnfQCelXBja0BwLXJMplM6TY1wXX22ap0ZViC0m714U5U4LQpzjabtFtjT8qOUR6L7hfy YQ72PBuktGb00UR/N5UrR6GqB0x4W41aZBHXfUQnvWIMmmCrRUJX36hOTYBzh+x86ULgg7H2 1499tA4o6rvE13FiGccplBNWCAIroAe/G11rdoN5NBgYVXu++38gTa/MBmIt6zRi6ch15oLA Ln2vHOdqhrgDuxjhMpG2bpNE36DG/V9WWyWdIRlz3NYPCDM/S3anbHlhjStXHOz1uHOnerXM 1jEjcsvmj1vSyYoQMyRcRJmBZLrekvgZeh7nJzbPHxtth8M7AoqiZ/o/BpYU+0xZ+J5/szWZ aYxxmIRu5ejFf+Wn9s5eXNHmyqxBidpCWvcbKYDBnkw2+Y9E5YTpL0mS0dCCOlrO7gca27ux ybtbj84aaW1g0CfIlUnOtHgMCmz6zPXThb+A8H8j3O6qmPoVqT3qnq3Uhy6GOoH8Fdu2Vchh TWiF5yo+pvUagQP6LpslffufSnu+RKAagkj7/RSuZV25Ag0EV9ZMvgEQAKc0Db17xNqtSwEv mfp4tkddwW9XA0tWWKtY4KUdd/jijYqc3fDD54ESYpV8QWj0xK4YM0dLxnDU2IYxjEshSB1T qAatVWz9WtBYvzalsyTqMKP3w34FciuL7orXP4AibPtrHuIXWQOBECcVZTTOdZYGAzaYzxiA ONzF9eTiwIqe9/oaOjTwTLnOarHt16QApTYQSnxDUQljeNvKYt1lZE/gAUUxNLWsYyTT+22/ vU0GDUahsJxs1+f1yEr+OGrFiEAmqrzpF0lCS3f/3HVTU6rS9cK3glVUeaTF4+1SK5ZNO35p iVQCwphmxa+dwTG/DvvHYCtgOZorTJ+OHfvCnSVjsM4kcXGjJPy3JZmUtyL9UxEbYlrffGPQ I3gLXIGD5AN5XdAXFCjjaID/KR1c9RHd7Oaw0Pdcq9UtMLgM1vdX8RlDuMGPrj5sQrRVbgYH fVU/TQCk1C9KhzOwg4Ap2T3tE1umY/DqrXQgsgH71PXFucVjOyHMYXXugLT8YQ0gcBPHy9mZ qw5mgOI5lCl6d4uCcUT0l/OEtPG/rA1lxz8ctdFBVOQOxCvwRG2QCgcJ/UTn5vlivul+cThi 6ERPvjqjblLncQtRg8izj2qgmwQkvfj+h7Ex88bI8iWtu5+I3K3LmNz/UxHBSWEmUnkg4fJl Rr7oItHsZ0ia6wWQ8lQnABEBAAGJAjwEGAEKACYCGwwWIQTSNlOHQi7ChOOZgcf5M+tD3xNh HwUCXWZ5wAUJB3FgggAKCRD5M+tD3xNhH2O+D/9OEz62YuJQLuIuOfL67eFTIB5/1+0j8Tsu o2psca1PUQ61SZJZOMl6VwNxpdvEaolVdrpnSxUF31kPEvR0Igy8HysQ11pj8AcgH0a9FrvU /8k2Roccd2ZIdpNLkirGFZR7LtRw41Kt1Jg+lafI0efkiHKMT/6D/P1EUp1RxOBNtWGV2hrd 0Yg9ds+VMphHHU69fDH02SwgpvXwG8Qm14Zi5WQ66R4CtTkHuYtA63sS17vMl8fDuTCtvfPF HzvdJLIhDYN3Mm1oMjKLlq4PUdYh68Fiwm+boJoBUFGuregJFlO3hM7uHBDhSEnXQr5mqpPM 6R/7Q5BjAxrwVBisH0yQGjsWlnysRWNfExAE2sRePSl0or9q19ddkRYltl6X4FDUXy2DTXa9 a+Fw4e1EvmcF3PjmTYs9IE3Vc64CRQXkhujcN4ZZh5lvOpU8WgyDxFq7bavFnSS6kx7Tk29/ wNJBp+cf9qsQxLbqhW5kfORuZGecus0TLcmpZEFKKjTJBK9gELRBB/zoN3j41hlEl7uTUXTI JQFLhpsFlEdKLujyvT/aCwP3XWT+B2uZDKrMAElF6ltpTxI53JYi22WO7NH7MR16Fhi4R6vh FHNBOkiAhUpoXRZXaCR6+X4qwA8CwHGqHRBfYFSU/Ulq1ZLR+S3hNj2mbnSx0lBs1eEqe2vh cA== Message-ID: <0a1708e5-70ba-16f8-29b0-bef8d4f20f80@intel.com> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:37:43 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] ethdev: support API to set max LRO packet size X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 11/8/2019 10:10 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: > > > From: Ferruh Yigit >> On 11/8/2019 6:54 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> From: Ferruh Yigit >>>> On 11/7/2019 12:35 PM, Dekel Peled wrote: >>>>> @@ -1266,6 +1286,18 @@ struct rte_eth_dev * >>>>> >>>> RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> + /* >>>>> + * If LRO is enabled, check that the maximum aggregated packet >>>>> + * size is supported by the configured device. >>>>> + */ >>>>> + if (dev_conf->rxmode.offloads & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO) { >>>>> + ret = check_lro_pkt_size( >>>>> + port_id, dev_conf- >>>>> rxmode.max_lro_pkt_size, >>>>> + dev_info.max_lro_pkt_size); >>>>> + if (ret != 0) >>>>> + goto rollback; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>> >>>> This check forces applications that enable LRO to provide >> 'max_lro_pkt_size' >>>> config value. >>> >>> Yes.(we can break an API, we noticed it) >> >> I am not talking about API/ABI breakage, that part is OK. >> With this check, if the application requested LRO offload but not provided >> 'max_lro_pkt_size' value, device configuration will fail. >> > Yes >> Can there be a case application is good with whatever the PMD can support >> as max? > Yes can be - you know, we can do everything we want but it is better to be consistent: > Due to the fact of Max rx pkt len field is mandatory for JUMBO offload, max lro pkt len should be mandatory for LRO offload. > > So your question is actually why both, non-lro packets and LRO packets max size are mandatory... > > > I think it should be important values for net applications management. > Also good for mbuf size managements. > >>> >>>> - Why it is mandatory now, how it was working before if it is >>>> mandatory value? >>> >>> It is the same as max_rx_pkt_len which is mandatory for jumbo frame >> offload. >>> So now, when the user configures a LRO offload he must to set max lro pkt >> len. >>> We don't want to confuse the user here with the max rx pkt len >> configurations and behaviors, they should be with same logic. >>> >>> This parameter defines well the LRO behavior. >>> Before this, each PMD took its own interpretation to what should be the >> maximum size for LRO aggregated packets. >>> Now, the user must say what is his intension, and the ethdev can limit it >> according to the device capability. >>> By this way, also, the PMD can organize\optimize its data-path more. >>> Also, the application can create different mempools for LRO queues to >> allow bigger packet receiving for LRO traffic. >>> >>>> - What happens if PMD doesn't provide 'max_lro_pkt_size', so it is '0'? >>> Yes, you can see the feature description Dekel added. >>> This patch also updates all the PMDs support an LRO for non-0 value. >> >> Of course I can see the updates Matan, my point is "What happens if PMD >> doesn't provide 'max_lro_pkt_size'", >> 1) There is no check for it right, so it is acceptable? > > There is check. > If the capability is 0, any non-zero configuration will fail. > >> 2) Are we making this filed mandatory to provide for PMDs, it is easy to make >> new fields mandatory for PMDs but is this really necessary? > > Yes, for consistence. > >>> >>> as same as max rx pkt len, no? >>> >>>> - What do you think setting 'max_lro_pkt_size' config value to what >>>> PMD provided if application doesn't provide it? >>> Same answers as above. >>> >> >> If application doesn't care the value, as it has been till now, and not provided >> explicit 'max_lro_pkt_size', why not ethdev level use the value provided by >> PMD instead of failing? > > Again, same question we can ask on max rx pkt len. > > Looks like the packet size is very important value which should be set by the application. > > Previous applications have no option to configure it, so they haven't configure it, (probably cover it somehow) I think it is our miss to supply this info. > > Let's do it in same way as we do max rx pkt len (as this patch main idea). > Later, we can change both to other meaning. > I think it is not a good reason to introduce a new mandatory config option for application because of 'max_rx_pkt_len' does it. Will it work, if: - If application doesn't provide this value, use the PMD max - If both application and PMD doesn't provide this value, fail on configure()?