From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D146DA04EF;
Mon, 25 May 2020 11:29:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C4A11D714;
Mon, 25 May 2020 11:29:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBF71D70A
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 11:29:44 +0200 (CEST)
IronPort-SDR: 4ZOCTI7LMhJyOMN6hRdnymv1Uk8sj9V/EJkUVTatmWJlp7R3vsNvwwF0ZI7cSviO8/7ahZ0P4f
xjpMiHmEcntg==
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41])
by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
25 May 2020 02:29:43 -0700
IronPort-SDR: bP7WXJKZ39KAgqaJ2pr6/BpbETMBNVQAZr317fcYD35lyTURpprCxYM/ptRydBI9vVxWgx6R10
534fBcFNwbRg==
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,433,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="441676769"
Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.22.226])
by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA;
25 May 2020 02:29:40 -0700
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 10:29:37 +0100
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "Varghese, Vipin" <vipin.varghese@intel.com>,
Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
"Kovacevic, Marko" <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>, "Nicolau, Radu" <radu.nicolau@intel.com>,
Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>,
"Kantecki, Tomasz" <tomasz.kantecki@intel.com>,
Sunil Kumar Kori <skori@marvell.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
"Andrzej Ostruszka [C]" <aostruszka@marvell.com>,
Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>,
Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
Message-ID: <20200525092937.GA891@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20200427075944.1314-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
<4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D4BB8CB@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
<BYAPR18MB25187F920A6195D7451E7B58DEA10@BYAPR18MB2518.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
<10969041.qOdnLc68Dm@thomas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <10969041.qOdnLc68Dm@thomas>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] examples/l2fwd: add cmdline option
for forwarding port info
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>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 06:13:22PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Bruce, as maintainer of l2fwd example, any opinion about this change?
>
Assuming all previous discussion on it is resolved, I'm fine with this
patch, though I suspect it will only make 20.08 now.
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
>
> 11/05/2020 02:23, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula:
> > Hi Vipin,
> >
> > >Hi Pavan,
> > >
> > >snipped
> > >> >
> > >> >Should we check & warn the user if
> > >> >1. port speed mismatch
> > >> >2. on different NUMA
> > >> >3. port pairs are physical and vdev like tap, and KNI (performance).
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Sure, it can be a separate patch as it will be applicable for multiple
> > >examples.
> > >I believe this patch is for example `l2fwd`. But you would like to have to
> > >updated for all `example`. I am ok for this.
> > >
> > >snipped
> > >> >
> > >> >Should not the check_port_pair be after this? If the port is not
> > >> >enabled in port_mask will you skip that pair? or skip RX-TX from that
> > >port?
> > >>
> > >> We check every port pair against l2fwd_enabled_port_mask in
> > >> check_port_pair_config()
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >snipped
> > >> >
> > >> >As mentioned above there can ports in mask which might be
> > >disabled for
> > >> >port pair. Should not that be skipped rather than setting last port rx-
> > >> >tx loopback?
> > >>
> > >> There could be scenarios where user might want to test 2x10G and
> > >1x40G Why
> > >> force the user to explicitly mention 1x40G as port pair of itself in the
> > >portpair
> > >> config?
> > >I am not sure if I follow your thought, as your current port map only
> > >allows `1:1` mapping by `struct port_pair_params`. This can be to self
> > >like `(port0:port0),(port1:port1)` or `(port-0:port-1)`.
> > >
> > >1. But current `l2fwd_parse_port_pair_config` does not consider the
> > >same port mapping as we have hard check for `if (nb_port_pair_params
> > >>= RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS/2)`.
> > >
> > >2. `l2fwd_enabled_port_mask` is global variable of user port mask. This
> > >can contain both valid and invalid mask. Hence we check
> > >`l2fwd_enabled_port_mask & ~((1 << nb_ports) - 1)`.
> > >
> > >3. can these scenarios are true if we invoke `check_port_pair_config`
> > >before actual port_mask check.
> > > a. there are only 4 ports, hence possible mask is `0xf`.
> > > b. user passes port argument as `0xe`
> > > c. `check_port_pair_config` gets masks for `(1,3)` as input and
> > >populates `port_pair_config_mask`.
> > > d. As per the code, port 2 which is valid port and part of user port mask
> > >will have lastport (which is port 3)? May be I did understand the logic
> > >correct. Can you help me?
> >
> > Here user needs to explicitly mention (2,2) for port 2 to be setup else it
> > will be skipped.
> > If you see `check_port_pair_config` below we disable the ports that are not
> > Mentioned in portmap.
> >
> > "
> > check_port_pair_config(void)
> > {
> >
> > <snip>
> > port_pair_config_mask |= port_pair_mask;
> > }
> >
> > l2fwd_enabled_port_mask &= port_pair_config_mask;
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > "
> >
> >
> > >
> > >So my concerns are 1) there is no same port mapping, 2) my
> > >understanding on lastport logic is not clear and 3) as per the code there
> > >is 1:N but 1:1.
> > >
> > >Hence there should be sufficient warning to user if port are of wrong
> > >speed and NUMA.
> >
> > Unless the user disables stats using -T 0 option all the prints will be skipped.
> >
> > >
> > >Note: current speed can be fetched only if the port are started too (in
> > >Fortville).
> > >
> > >snipped
>
>
>
>