DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
To: "Frank Du" <frank.du@intel.com>,
	dev@dpdk.org, "Andrew Rybchenko" <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
	"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Cc: ciara.loftus@intel.com, "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/af_xdp: fix umem map size for zero copy
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 18:57:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0d02e8c6-0ef4-44e3-9dd2-94685b46136a@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240511052618.1890677-1-frank.du@intel.com>

On 5/11/2024 6:26 AM, Frank Du wrote:
> The current calculation assumes that the mbufs are contiguous. However,
> this assumption is incorrect when the memory spans across a huge page.
> Correct to directly read the size from the mempool memory chunks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Du <frank.du@intel.com>
> 
> ---
> v2:
> * Add virtual contiguous detect for for multiple memhdrs.
> ---
>  drivers/net/af_xdp/rte_eth_af_xdp.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/af_xdp/rte_eth_af_xdp.c b/drivers/net/af_xdp/rte_eth_af_xdp.c
> index 268a130c49..7456108d6d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/af_xdp/rte_eth_af_xdp.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/af_xdp/rte_eth_af_xdp.c
> @@ -1039,16 +1039,35 @@ eth_link_update(struct rte_eth_dev *dev __rte_unused,
>  }
>  
>  #if defined(XDP_UMEM_UNALIGNED_CHUNK_FLAG)
> -static inline uintptr_t get_base_addr(struct rte_mempool *mp, uint64_t *align)
> +static inline uintptr_t get_memhdr_info(struct rte_mempool *mp, uint64_t *align, size_t *len)
>  {
> -	struct rte_mempool_memhdr *memhdr;
> +	struct rte_mempool_memhdr *memhdr, *next;
>  	uintptr_t memhdr_addr, aligned_addr;
> +	size_t memhdr_len = 0;
>  
> +	/* get the mempool base addr and align */
>  	memhdr = STAILQ_FIRST(&mp->mem_list);
>  	memhdr_addr = (uintptr_t)memhdr->addr;
>  	aligned_addr = memhdr_addr & ~(getpagesize() - 1);
>  	*align = memhdr_addr - aligned_addr;
>

I am aware this is not part of this patch, but as note, can't we use
'RTE_ALIGN_FLOOR' to calculate aligned address.


> +	memhdr_len += memhdr->len;
> +
> +	/* check if virtual contiguous memory for multiple memhdrs */
> +	next = STAILQ_NEXT(memhdr, next);
> +	while (next != NULL) {
> +		if ((uintptr_t)next->addr != (uintptr_t)memhdr->addr + memhdr->len) {
> +			AF_XDP_LOG(ERR, "memory chunks not virtual contiguous, "
> +					"next: %p, cur: %p(len: %" PRId64 " )\n",
> +					next->addr, memhdr->addr, memhdr->len);
> +			return 0;
> +		}
>

Isn't there a mempool flag that can help us figure out mempool is not
IOVA contiguous? Isn't it sufficient on its own?


> +		/* virtual contiguous */
> +		memhdr = next;
> +		memhdr_len += memhdr->len;
> +		next = STAILQ_NEXT(memhdr, next);
> +	}
>  
> +	*len = memhdr_len;
>  	return aligned_addr;
>  }
>

This function goes too much details of the mempool object, and any
change in mempool details has potential to break this code.

@Andrew, @Morten, do you think does it make sense to have
'rte_mempool_info_get()' kind of function, that provides at least
address and length of the mempool, and used here?

This helps to hide internal details and complexity of the mempool for users.


>  
> @@ -1125,6 +1144,7 @@ xsk_umem_info *xdp_umem_configure(struct pmd_internals *internals,
>  	void *base_addr = NULL;
>  	struct rte_mempool *mb_pool = rxq->mb_pool;
>  	uint64_t umem_size, align = 0;
> +	size_t len = 0;
>  
>  	if (internals->shared_umem) {
>  		if (get_shared_umem(rxq, internals->if_name, &umem) < 0)
> @@ -1156,10 +1176,12 @@ xsk_umem_info *xdp_umem_configure(struct pmd_internals *internals,
>  		}
>  
>  		umem->mb_pool = mb_pool;
> -		base_addr = (void *)get_base_addr(mb_pool, &align);
> -		umem_size = (uint64_t)mb_pool->populated_size *
> -				(uint64_t)usr_config.frame_size +
> -				align;
> +		base_addr = (void *)get_memhdr_info(mb_pool, &align, &len);
>

Is this calculation correct if mempool is not already aligned to page size?

Like in an example page size is '0x1000', and "memhdr_addr = 0x000a1080"
returned aligned address is '0x000a1000', "base_addr = 0x000a1000"

Any access between '0x000a1000' & '0x000a1080' is invalid. Is this expected?


> +		if (!base_addr) {
> +			AF_XDP_LOG(ERR, "Failed to parse memhdr info from pool\n");
>

Log message is not accurate, it is not parsing memhdr info failed, but
mempool was not satisfying expectation.

> +			goto err;
> +		}
> +		umem_size = (uint64_t)len + align;
>  
>  		ret = xsk_umem__create(&umem->umem, base_addr, umem_size,
>  				&rxq->fq, &rxq->cq, &usr_config);


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-05-21 17:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-26  0:51 [PATCH] " Frank Du
2024-04-26 10:43 ` Loftus, Ciara
2024-04-28  0:46   ` Du, Frank
2024-04-30  9:22     ` Loftus, Ciara
2024-05-11  5:26 ` [PATCH v2] " Frank Du
2024-05-17 13:19   ` Loftus, Ciara
2024-05-20  1:28     ` Du, Frank
2024-05-21 15:43   ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-05-21 17:57   ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2024-05-22  1:25     ` Du, Frank
2024-05-22  7:26       ` Morten Brørup
2024-05-22 10:20         ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-05-23  6:56         ` Du, Frank
2024-05-23  7:40           ` Morten Brørup
2024-05-23  7:56             ` Du, Frank
2024-05-29 12:57               ` Loftus, Ciara
2024-05-29 14:16                 ` Morten Brørup
2024-05-22 10:00       ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-05-22 11:03         ` Morten Brørup
2024-05-22 14:05           ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-05-23  6:53 ` [PATCH v3] " Frank Du
2024-05-23  8:07 ` [PATCH v4] " Frank Du
2024-05-23  9:22   ` Morten Brørup
2024-05-23 13:31     ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-05-24  1:05       ` Du, Frank
2024-05-24  5:30         ` Morten Brørup
2024-06-20  3:25 ` [PATCH v5] net/af_xdp: parse umem map info from mempool range api Frank Du
2024-06-20  7:10   ` Morten Brørup
2024-07-06  3:40     ` Ferruh Yigit

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=0d02e8c6-0ef4-44e3-9dd2-94685b46136a@amd.com \
    --to=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
    --cc=ciara.loftus@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=frank.du@intel.com \
    --cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).