From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E76F1B432
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:04:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com
[10.11.54.4])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 068E487A81;
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:04:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.36.112.15] (unknown [10.36.112.15])
by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 596DF2026D68;
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:04:24 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Liu, Yong" <yong.liu@intel.com>, "Bie, Tiwei" <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
Cc: "Wang, Zhihong" <zhihong.wang@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
References: <20180628215235.106069-1-yong.liu@intel.com>
<20180628215235.106069-9-yong.liu@intel.com>
<a9f0a10e-e8e0-b95f-8998-2d1ae12bd1e4@redhat.com>
<86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E630CDAE9@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1d68616b-1408-7cf1-2591-72756a7a0cdd@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:04:23 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E630CDAE9@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16
(mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.1]); Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:04:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.1]);
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:04:27 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.4'
DOMAIN:'int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com'
HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'maxime.coquelin@redhat.com' RCPT:''
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 08/11] net/virtio: add in-order Rx/Tx into
selection
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:04:27 -0000
On 06/28/2018 05:39 PM, Liu, Yong wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Maxime Coquelin [mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 11:16 PM
>> To: Liu, Yong <yong.liu@intel.com>; Bie, Tiwei <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
>> Cc: Wang, Zhihong <zhihong.wang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/11] net/virtio: add in-order Rx/Tx into
>> selection
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/28/2018 11:52 PM, Marvin Liu wrote:
>>> After IN_ORDER Rx/Tx paths added, need to update Rx/Tx path selection
>>> logic.
>>>
>>> Rx path select logic: If IN_ORDER is disabled will select normal Rx
>>> path. If IN_ORDER is enabled, Rx offload and merge-able are disabled
>>> will select simple Rx path. Otherwise will select IN_ORDER Rx path.
>>>
>>> Tx path select logic: If IN_ORDER is disabled will select normal Tx
>>> path. If IN_ORDER is enabled and merge-able is disabled will select
>>> simple Tx path. Otherwise will select IN_ORDER Tx path.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marvin Liu <yong.liu@intel.com>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
>> b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
>>> index df50a571a..2b3d65f80 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
>>> @@ -1320,6 +1320,11 @@ set_rxtx_funcs(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
>>> PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "virtio: using simple Rx path on port %u",
>>> eth_dev->data->port_id);
>>> eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst = virtio_recv_pkts_vec;
>>> + } else if (hw->use_inorder_rx) {
>>> + PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO,
>>> + "virtio: using inorder mergeable buffer Rx path on
>> port %u",
>>> + eth_dev->data->port_id);
>>> + eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst = &virtio_recv_mergeable_pkts_inorder;
>>> } else if (vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF)) {
>>> PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO,
>>> "virtio: using mergeable buffer Rx path on port %u",
>>> @@ -1335,6 +1340,10 @@ set_rxtx_funcs(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
>>> PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "virtio: using simple Tx path on port %u",
>>> eth_dev->data->port_id);
>>> eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = virtio_xmit_pkts_simple;
>>> + } else if (hw->use_inorder_tx) {
>>> + PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "virtio: using inorder Tx path on port %u",
>>> + eth_dev->data->port_id);
>>> + eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = virtio_xmit_pkts_inorder;
>>> } else {
>>> PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "virtio: using standard Tx path on port %u",
>>> eth_dev->data->port_id);
>>> @@ -1871,24 +1880,24 @@ virtio_dev_configure(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>>
>>> rte_spinlock_init(&hw->state_lock);
>>>
>>> - hw->use_simple_rx = 1;
>>> - hw->use_simple_tx = 1;
>>> -
>>> #if defined RTE_ARCH_ARM64 || defined RTE_ARCH_ARM
>>> if (!rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(RTE_CPUFLAG_NEON)) {
>>> hw->use_simple_rx = 0;
>>> hw->use_simple_tx = 0;
>>> }
>>> #endif
>>> - if (vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF)) {
>>> - hw->use_simple_rx = 0;
>>> - hw->use_simple_tx = 0;
>>> + if (vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER)) {
>>> + if (vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF)) {
>>> + hw->use_inorder_rx = 1;
>>> + hw->use_inorder_tx = 1;
>>> + } else {
>>> + hw->use_simple_tx = 1;
>>> + if (!(rx_offloads & (DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM |
>>> + DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM)))
>>> + hw->use_simple_rx = 1;
>>> + }
>>
>> It seems to be wrong.
>> For example if IN_ORDER hasn't been negotiated, we might want to use the
>> simple path if no rx offload have been requested by the application.
>>
>> It was the case before the patch if I'm not mistaken.
>
> Maxime,
> IN_ORDER is the prerequisite for selection simple rx/tx path. So when IN_ORDER + mergeable off + no rx offload will chose simple rx path.
Ok, I wonder in that case if I could just remove the simple Tx path in
my series as it is not compliant with IN_ORDER.
Tiwei, what's your take on this?
Also, I wonder if it would make sense to backport the vhost patch that
advertize IN_ORDER features to the LTS, as no functional changes, except
that it prevents using "simple/inorder" path with dequeue zero copy,
which is a good thing.
Any thoughts?
>>
>> Also, with ARM platform, we force not to use simple path, but in case
>> IN_ORDER has been negotiated but not MRG_RXBUF, it gets re-enabled.
>
> Will move ARM force action behind normal selection, thus can satisfy ARM.
I can change when applying.
Thanks,
Maxime
> Thanks,
> Marvin
>
>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (rx_offloads & (DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM |
>>> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM))
>>> - hw->use_simple_rx = 0;
>>> -
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>>