Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/6] ethdev: add descriptor status API

[Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for the review. Comments inline.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:22:14 +0300, Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com> wrote:
> On 03/01/2017 08:19 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > Introduce a new API to get the status of a descriptor.
> >
> > For Rx, it is almost similar to rx_descriptor_done API, except it
> > differentiates "used" descriptors (which are hold by the driver and not
> > returned to the hardware).
> >
> > For Tx, it is a new API.
> >
> > The descriptor_done() API, and probably the rx_queue_count() API could
> > be replaced by this new API as soon as it is implemented on all PMDs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> > ---
> >   lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 86 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > index 97f3e2d..9ac9c61 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > @@ -1179,6 +1179,14 @@ typedef uint32_t (*eth_rx_queue_count_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> >   typedef int (*eth_rx_descriptor_done_t)(void *rxq, uint16_t offset);
> >   /**< @internal Check DD bit of specific RX descriptor */
> >   
> > +typedef int (*eth_rx_descriptor_status_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > +	uint16_t rx_queue_id, uint16_t offset);
> > +/**< @internal Check the status of a Rx descriptor */
> > +
> > +typedef int (*eth_tx_descriptor_status_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > +	uint16_t tx_queue_id, uint16_t offset);
> > +/**< @internal Check the status of a Tx descriptor */
> > +
> >   typedef int (*eth_fw_version_get_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> >   				     char *fw_version, size_t fw_size);
> >   /**< @internal Get firmware information of an Ethernet device. */
> > @@ -1483,6 +1491,10 @@ struct eth_dev_ops {
> >   	eth_queue_release_t        rx_queue_release; /**< Release RX queue. */
> >   	eth_rx_queue_count_t       rx_queue_count;/**< Get Rx queue count. */
> >   	eth_rx_descriptor_done_t   rx_descriptor_done; /**< Check rxd DD bit. */
> > +	eth_rx_descriptor_status_t rx_descriptor_status;
> > +	/**< Check the status of a Rx descriptor. */
> > +	eth_tx_descriptor_status_t tx_descriptor_status;
> > +	/**< Check the status of a Tx descriptor. */
> >   	eth_rx_enable_intr_t       rx_queue_intr_enable;  /**< Enable Rx queue interrupt. */
> >   	eth_rx_disable_intr_t      rx_queue_intr_disable; /**< Disable Rx queue interrupt. */
> >   	eth_tx_queue_setup_t       tx_queue_setup;/**< Set up device TX queue. */
> > @@ -2768,6 +2780,80 @@ rte_eth_rx_descriptor_done(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t queue_id, uint16_t offset)
> >   		dev->data->rx_queues[queue_id], offset);
> >   }
> >   
> > +#define RTE_ETH_RX_DESC_AVAIL 0 /**< Desc available for hw. */
> > +#define RTE_ETH_RX_DESC_DONE  1 /**< Desc done, filled by hw. */
> > +#define RTE_ETH_RX_DESC_USED  2 /**< Desc used by driver. */
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * Check the status of a Rx descriptor in the queue  
> 
> I think it would be useful to highlight caller context.
> Should it be the same CPU which receives packets from the queue?

Yes, you are right it would be useful. I suggest the following sentences:

  This function should be called on a dataplane core like the
  Rx function. They should not be called concurrently on the same
  queue.



> 
> > + *
> > + * @param port_id
> > + *  The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
> > + * @param queue_id
> > + *  The Rx queue identifier on this port.
> > + * @param offset
> > + *  The offset of the descriptor starting from tail (0 is the next
> > + *  packet to be received by the driver).
> > + * @return
> > + *  - (RTE_ETH_DESC_AVAIL): Descriptor is available for the hardware to
> > + *    receive a packet.
> > + *  - (RTE_ETH_DESC_DONE): Descriptor is done, it is filled by hw, but
> > + *    not yet processed by the driver (i.e. in the receive queue).
> > + *  - (RTE_ETH_DESC_USED): Descriptor is unavailable (hold by driver,
> > + *    not yet returned to hw).  
> 
> It looks like it is the most suitable for descriptors which are reserved 
> and never used.

Can you give some more details about what is a reserved but never
used descriptor? (same question for Tx)


> 
> > + *  - (-ENODEV) if *port_id* invalid.
> > + *  - (-EINVAL) bad descriptor offset.
> > + *  - (-ENOTSUP) if the device does not support this function.  
> 
> What should be returned if queue_id is invalid?

I'd say -ENODEV too. On the other hand, adding these checks is
maybe not a good idea as we are in dataplane.

The previous API rx_descriptor_done() API was taking the queue
pointer as parameter, like Rx/Tx functions. It's probably a better
idea.


> What should be returned if the queue is stopped?

For the same performance reasons, I think we should just highlight
in the API that this dataplane function should not be called on a
stopped queue.


> 
> > + */
> > +static inline int
> > +rte_eth_rx_descriptor_status(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t queue_id,
> > +	uint16_t offset)
> > +{
> > +	struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> > +
> > +	RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
> > +	dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> > +	RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->rx_descriptor_status, -ENOTSUP);
> > +  
> 
> May be it makes sense to range check queue_id here to avoid such code in 
> each PMD?

If we keep this API, yes. If we switch to a queue pointer as proposed
above, we will assume (and highlight in the API doc) that the pointer
must be valid, like for Rx/Tx funcs.


Olivier