From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725482C15
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 10:10:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41])
by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
05 Sep 2017 01:09:56 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,479,1498546800"; d="scan'208";a="145546363"
Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.28])
by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Sep 2017 01:09:55 -0700
Received: from irsmsx155.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.3) by
irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
id 14.3.319.2; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 09:09:55 +0100
Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.75]) by
irsmsx155.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.14.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002;
Tue, 5 Sep 2017 09:09:54 +0100
From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
CC: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the new
offloads API
Thread-Index: AQHTJYU8DF/tpFi9okyg3kyCdEiysqKkwPgQgAEZ2gCAABLvoA==
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 08:09:54 +0000
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F246819@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <cover.1504508374.git.shahafs@mellanox.com>
<2327783.H4uO08xLcu@xps>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F2460F1@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
<2334939.YzL2ADl2XU@xps>
In-Reply-To: <2334939.YzL2ADl2XU@xps>
Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.0.0.116
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the new
offloads API
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 08:10:49 -0000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 8:48 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the ne=
w offloads API
>=20
> 04/09/2017 16:18, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > > 04/09/2017 15:25, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > > Hi Shahaf,
> > > >
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * A conversion function from rxmode offloads API to rte_eth_rxq=
_conf
> > > > > + * offloads API.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static void
> > > > > +rte_eth_convert_rxmode_offloads(struct rte_eth_rxmode *rxmode,
> > > > > + struct rte_eth_rxq_conf *rxq_conf)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + if (rxmode->header_split =3D=3D 1)
> > > > > + rxq_conf->offloads |=3D DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT;
> > > > > + if (rxmode->hw_ip_checksum =3D=3D 1)
> > > > > + rxq_conf->offloads |=3D DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM;
> > > > > + if (rxmode->hw_vlan_filter =3D=3D 1)
> > > > > + rxq_conf->offloads |=3D DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_FILTER;
> > > >
> > > > Thinking on it a bit more:
> > > > VLAN_FILTER is definitely one per device, as it would affect VFs al=
so.
> > > > At least that's what we have for Intel devices (ixgbe, i40e) right =
now.
> > > > For Intel devices VLAN_STRIP is also per device and
> > > > will also be applied to all corresponding VFs.
> > > > In fact, right now it is possible to query/change these 3 vlan offl=
oad flags on the fly
> > > > (after dev_start) on port basis by rte_eth_dev_(get|set)_vlan_offl=
oad API.
> > > > So, I think at least these 3 flags need to be remained on a port ba=
sis.
> > >
> > > I don't understand how it helps to be able to configure the same thin=
g
> > > in 2 places.
> >
> > Because some offloads are per device, another - per queue.
> > Configuring on a device basis would allow most users to conjure all
> > queues in the same manner by default.
> > Those users who would need more fine-grained setup (per queue)
> > will be able to overwrite it by rx_queue_setup().
>=20
> Those users can set the same config for all queues.
> >
> > > I think you are just describing a limitation of these HW: some offloa=
ds
> > > must be the same for all queues.
> >
> > As I said above - on some devices some offloads might also affect queue=
s
> > that belong to VFs (to another ports in DPDK words).
> > You might never invoke rx_queue_setup() for these queues per your app.
> > But you still want to enable this offload on that device.
I am ok with having per-port and per-queue offload configuration.
My concern is that after that patch only per-queue offload configuration wi=
ll remain.
I think we need both.
Konstantin
>=20
> You are advocating for per-port configuration API because
> some settings must be the same on all the ports of your hardware?
> So there is a big trouble. You don't need per-port settings,
> but per-hw-device settings.
> Or would you accept more fine-grained per-port settings?
> If yes, you can accept even finer grained per-queues settings.
> >
> > > It does not prevent from configuring them in the per-queue setup.
> > >
> > > > In fact, why can't we have both per port and per queue RX offload:
> > > > - dev_configure() will accept RX_OFFLOAD_* flags and apply them on =
a port basis.
> > > > - rx_queue_setup() will also accept RX_OFFLOAD_* flags and apply th=
em on a queue basis.
> > > > - if particular RX_OFFLOAD flag for that device couldn't be setup o=
n a queue basis -
> > > > rx_queue_setup() will return an error.
> > >
> > > The queue setup can work while the value is the same for every queues=
.
> >
> > Ok, and how people would know that?
> > That for device N offload X has to be the same for all queues,
> > and for device M offload X can be differs for different queues.
>=20
> We can know the hardware limitations by filling this information
> at PMD init.
>=20
> > Again, if we don't allow to enable/disable offloads for particular queu=
e,
> > why to bother with updating rx_queue_setup() API at all?
>=20
> I do not understand this question.
>=20
> > > > - rte_eth_rxq_info can be extended to provide information which RX_=
OFFLOADs
> > > > can be configured on a per queue basis.
> > >
> > > Yes the PMD should advertise its limitations like being forced to
> > > apply the same configuration to all its queues.
> >
> > Didn't get your last sentence.
>=20
> I agree that the hardware limitations must be written in an ethdev struct=
ure.