DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Wei Dai <wei.dai@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12] ethdev: new Rx/Tx offloads API
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 23:39:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1576914.aDSgkB13uL@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1525953415-14156-1-git-send-email-wei.dai@intel.com>

Hi,

A first general comment: a lot of spaces are still inside parens.
You can grep '( )'.

10/05/2018 13:56, Wei Dai:
> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst
> +A per-queue offloading can be enabled on a queue and disabled on another queue at the same time.
> +A pure per-port offload is the one supported by device but not per-queue type.

Another way to say it: pure per-port offloads are not directly advertised but
are the port offloads capabilities minus the queue capabilities.
port capabilities = pure per-port capabilities + queue capabilities

> +A pure per-port offloading can't be enabled on a queue and disabled on another queue at the same time.
> +A pure per-port offloading must be enabled or disabled on all queues at the same time.
> +Any offloading is per-queue or pure per-port type, but can't be both types at same devices.
> +A per-port offloading can be enabled or disabled on all queues at the same time.

This sentence is useless: it says any offload can be setup for the whole port.

> +It is certain that both per-queue and pure per-port offloading are per-port type.

This sentence is confusing. I cannot understand it.


>  The different offloads capabilities can be queried using ``rte_eth_dev_info_get()``.
> +The dev_info->[rt]x_queue_offload_capa returned from ``rte_eth_dev_info_get()`` includes all per-queue offloading capabilities.
> +The dev_info->[rt]x_offload_capa returned from ``rte_eth_dev_info_get()`` includes all per-port and per-queue offloading capabilities.

If you want to stick with pure per-port wording, you should say
[rt]x_offload_capa is the port capabilities (including pure per-port and per-queue).


> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> +	/* Any requested offloading must be within its device capabilities */
> +	if ((local_conf.rxmode.offloads & dev_info.rx_offload_capa) !=
> +	     local_conf.rxmode.offloads) {
> +		ethdev_log(ERR, "ethdev port_id=%d requested Rx offloads "
> +				"0x%" PRIx64 " doesn't match Rx offloads "
> +				"capabilities 0x%" PRIx64 " in %s( )\n",
> +				port_id,
> +				local_conf.rxmode.offloads,
> +				dev_info.rx_offload_capa,
> +				__func__);

We could have a comment saying that an error will be returned in next version.

> +	}
> +	if ((local_conf.txmode.offloads & dev_info.tx_offload_capa) !=
> +	     local_conf.txmode.offloads) {
> +		ethdev_log(ERR, "ethdev port_id=%d requested Tx offloads "
> +				"0x%" PRIx64 " doesn't match Tx offloads "
> +				"capabilities 0x%" PRIx64 " in %s( )\n",
> +				port_id,
> +				local_conf.txmode.offloads,
> +				dev_info.tx_offload_capa,
> +				__func__);

idem

> +	}


> +	/*
> +	 * If an offloading has already been enabled in
> +	 * rte_eth_dev_configure(), it has been enabled on all queues,
> +	 * so there is no need to enable it in this queue again.
> +	 * The local_conf.offloads input to underlying PMD only carries
> +	 * those offloadings which are only enabled on this queue and
> +	 * not enabled on all queues.
> +	 * The underlying PMD must be aware of this point.

I think the last sentence is useless.

> +	 */
> +	local_conf.offloads &= ~dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * New added offloadings for this queue are those not enabled in
> +	 * rte_eth_dev_configure( ) and they must be per-queue type.
> +	 * A pure per-port offloading can't be enabled on a queue while
> +	 * disabled on another queue. A pure per-port offloading can't
> +	 * be enabled for any queue as new added one if it hasn't been
> +	 * enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
> +	 */
> +	if ((local_conf.offloads & dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa) !=
> +	     local_conf.offloads) {
> +		ethdev_log(ERR, "Ethdev port_id=%d rx_queue_id=%d, new "
> +				"added offloads 0x%" PRIx64 " must be "
> +				"within pre-queue offload capabilities 0x%"
> +				PRIx64 " in %s( )\n",
> +				port_id,
> +				rx_queue_id,
> +				local_conf.offloads,
> +				dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa,
> +				__func__);

idem, we can have a comment about error in next version

> +	}


> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
>  	uint64_t rx_offload_capa;
> -	/**< Device per port RX offload capabilities. */
> +	/**< All RX offload capabilities including all per queue ones */

OK
per queue -> per-queue

>  	uint64_t tx_offload_capa;
> -	/**< Device per port TX offload capabilities. */
> +	/**< All TX offload capabilities.including all per-queue ones */

Typo: there is a dot instead of space.

>  	uint64_t rx_queue_offload_capa;
>  	/**< Device per queue RX offload capabilities. */

Here you should add more comments:
	No need to repeat flags already enabled at port level.
	A flag enabled at port level, cannot be disabled at queue level.


> + *     -  Any offloading set in eth_conf->[rt]xmode.offloads must be within
> + *        the [rt]x_offload_capa returned from rte_eth_dev_infos_get().

OK

> + *        Any type of device supported offloading set in the input argument
> + *        eth_conf->[rt]xmode.offloads to rte_eth_dev_configure() is enabled
> + *        on all [RT]x queues and it can't be disabled no matter whether
> + *        it is cleared or set in the input argument [rt]x_conf->offloads
> + *        to rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup().

last part can be simpler: cannot be disabled in queue setup.
"[RT]x queues" can be simply "queues".


> + *   If an offloading set in rx_conf->offloads
> + *   hasn't been set in the input argument eth_conf->rxmode.offloads
> + *   to rte_eth_dev_configure(), it is a new added offloading, it must be
> + *   per-queue type and it is enabled for the queue.

OK
Another wording:
The offloads not advertised in queue capabilities, and not already enabled
at port level, are rejected.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-10 21:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-01 13:53 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: check consistency of per port offloads Wei Dai
2018-03-28  8:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads Wei Dai
2018-04-13 17:31   ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-15 10:37     ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-16  3:06       ` Dai, Wei
2018-04-25 11:26   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Wei Dai
2018-04-25 11:31   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Wei Dai
2018-04-25 11:49     ` Wei Dai
2018-04-25 11:50   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Wei Dai
2018-04-25 17:04     ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-26  7:59       ` Zhang, Qi Z
2018-04-26  8:18         ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-26  8:51           ` Zhang, Qi Z
2018-04-26 14:45             ` Dai, Wei
2018-04-26 14:37     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] " Wei Dai
2018-04-26 15:50       ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-26 15:56         ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-26 15:59           ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-26 16:11         ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-03  1:30       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6] " Wei Dai
2018-05-04 11:12         ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-04 14:02         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7] " Wei Dai
2018-05-04 14:42           ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-04 14:45             ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-05 18:59           ` Shahaf Shuler
2018-05-07  7:15             ` Dai, Wei
2018-05-08 10:58             ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-08 10:05           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8] " Wei Dai
2018-05-08 10:41             ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-05-08 11:02               ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-08 11:22                 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-05-08 11:37             ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-05-08 12:34               ` Dai, Wei
2018-05-08 12:12             ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-09 12:45               ` Dai, Wei
2018-05-10  0:49             ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9] ethdev: new Rx/Tx offloads API Wei Dai
2018-05-10  0:56               ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10] " Wei Dai
2018-05-10  1:28                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-10  2:35                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-05-10 11:27                   ` Dai, Wei
2018-05-10  9:25                 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-05-10 19:47                   ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-10 11:30                 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11] " Wei Dai
2018-05-10 11:56                   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12] " Wei Dai
2018-05-10 21:39                     ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2018-05-14  8:37                       ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-05-14 11:19                         ` Dai, Wei
2018-05-10 21:48                     ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-14 12:00                     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v13] " Wei Dai
2018-05-14 12:54                       ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-05-14 13:26                         ` Dai, Wei
2018-05-14 13:20                       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v14] " Wei Dai
2018-05-14 14:11                         ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-05-14 14:46                           ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-10 21:08                 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-08 10:10           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads Wei Dai
2018-05-08 17:51             ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-05-09  2:10               ` Dai, Wei
2018-05-09 14:11               ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-09 22:40                 ` 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=1576914.aDSgkB13uL@xps \
    --to=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=wei.dai@intel.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).