Re: 回复: 回复: [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: add API for direct rearm mode

[Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>]

12/10/2022 14:38, Feifei Wang пишет:
> 
> 
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>
>> 发送时间: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 6:21 AM
>> 收件人: Feifei Wang <Feifei.Wang2@arm.com>; thomas@monjalon.net;
>> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@xilinx.com>; Andrew Rybchenko
>> <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>; Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
>> 抄送: dev@dpdk.org; nd <nd@arm.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
>> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang
>> <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
>> 主题: Re: 回复: [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: add API for direct rearm mode
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Add API for enabling direct rearm mode and for mapping RX and TX
>>>>> queues. Currently, the API supports 1:1(txq : rxq) mapping.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, to avoid Rx load Tx data directly, add API called
>>>>> 'rte_eth_txq_data_get' to get Tx sw_ring and its information.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
>>>>> Suggested-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h   |  9 ++++
>>>>>     lib/ethdev/ethdev_private.c  |  1 +
>>>>>     lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c      | 37 ++++++++++++++
>>>>>     lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h      | 95
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>     lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev_core.h |  5 ++
>>>>>     lib/ethdev/version.map       |  4 ++
>>>>>     6 files changed, 151 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
>>>>> index 47a55a419e..14f52907c1 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
>>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
>>>>> @@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ struct rte_eth_dev {
>>>>>     	eth_rx_descriptor_status_t rx_descriptor_status;
>>>>>     	/** Check the status of a Tx descriptor */
>>>>>     	eth_tx_descriptor_status_t tx_descriptor_status;
>>>>> +	/**  Use Tx mbufs for Rx to rearm */
>>>>> +	eth_rx_direct_rearm_t rx_direct_rearm;
>>>>>
>>>>>     	/**
>>>>>     	 * Device data that is shared between primary and secondary
>>>>> processes @@ -486,6 +488,11 @@ typedef int
>>>> (*eth_rx_enable_intr_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>>>>     typedef int (*eth_rx_disable_intr_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>>>>     				    uint16_t rx_queue_id);
>>>>>
>>>>> +/**< @internal Get Tx information of a transmit queue of an
>>>>> +Ethernet device. */ typedef void (*eth_txq_data_get_t)(struct
>> rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>>>> +				      uint16_t tx_queue_id,
>>>>> +				      struct rte_eth_txq_data *txq_data);
>>>>> +
>>>>>     /** @internal Release memory resources allocated by given Rx/Tx
>> queue.
>>>> */
>>>>>     typedef void (*eth_queue_release_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>>>>     				    uint16_t queue_id);
>>>>> @@ -1138,6 +1145,8 @@ struct eth_dev_ops {
>>>>>     	eth_rxq_info_get_t         rxq_info_get;
>>>>>     	/** Retrieve Tx queue information */
>>>>>     	eth_txq_info_get_t         txq_info_get;
>>>>> +	/** Get the address where Tx data is stored */
>>>>> +	eth_txq_data_get_t         txq_data_get;
>>>>>     	eth_burst_mode_get_t       rx_burst_mode_get; /**< Get Rx burst
>>>> mode */
>>>>>     	eth_burst_mode_get_t       tx_burst_mode_get; /**< Get Tx burst
>>>> mode */
>>>>>     	eth_fw_version_get_t       fw_version_get; /**< Get firmware
>>>> version */
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_private.c
>>>>> b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_private.c index 48090c879a..bfe16c7d77 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_private.c
>>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_private.c
>>>>> @@ -276,6 +276,7 @@ eth_dev_fp_ops_setup(struct rte_eth_fp_ops
>>>> *fpo,
>>>>>     	fpo->rx_queue_count = dev->rx_queue_count;
>>>>>     	fpo->rx_descriptor_status = dev->rx_descriptor_status;
>>>>>     	fpo->tx_descriptor_status = dev->tx_descriptor_status;
>>>>> +	fpo->rx_direct_rearm = dev->rx_direct_rearm;
>>>>>
>>>>>     	fpo->rxq.data = dev->data->rx_queues;
>>>>>     	fpo->rxq.clbk = (void **)(uintptr_t)dev->post_rx_burst_cbs;
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c index
>>>>> 0c2c1088c0..0dccec2e4b 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>>> @@ -1648,6 +1648,43 @@ rte_eth_dev_is_removed(uint16_t port_id)
>>>>>     	return ret;
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>> +int
>>>>> +rte_eth_tx_queue_data_get(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t queue_id,
>>>>> +			struct rte_eth_txq_data *txq_data) {
>>>>> +	struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
>>>>> +	dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (queue_id >= dev->data->nb_tx_queues) {
>>>>> +		RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Invalid Tx queue_id=%u\n",
>>>> queue_id);
>>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (txq_data == NULL) {
>>>>> +		RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Cannot get ethdev port %u Tx
>>>> queue %u data to NULL\n",
>>>>> +			port_id, queue_id);
>>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (dev->data->tx_queues == NULL ||
>>>>> +			dev->data->tx_queues[queue_id] == NULL) {
>>>>> +		RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR,
>>>>> +			   "Tx queue %"PRIu16" of device with port_id=%"
>>>>> +			   PRIu16" has not been setup\n",
>>>>> +			   queue_id, port_id);
>>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (*dev->dev_ops->txq_data_get == NULL)
>>>>> +		return -ENOTSUP;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	dev->dev_ops->txq_data_get(dev, queue_id, txq_data);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>     static int
>>>>>     rte_eth_rx_queue_check_split(const struct rte_eth_rxseg_split
>> *rx_seg,
>>>>>     			     uint16_t n_seg, uint32_t *mbp_buf_size, diff --git
>>>>> a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h index
>>>>> 2e783536c1..daf7f05d62 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
>>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
>>>>> @@ -1949,6 +1949,23 @@ struct rte_eth_txq_info {
>>>>>     	uint8_t queue_state;        /**< one of RTE_ETH_QUEUE_STATE_*. */
>>>>>     } __rte_cache_min_aligned;
>>>>>
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * @internal
>>>>> + * Structure used to hold pointers to internal ethdev Tx data.
>>>>> + * The main purpose is to load and store Tx queue data in direct
>>>>> +rearm
>>>> mode.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +struct rte_eth_txq_data {
>>>>> +	uint64_t *offloads;
>>>>> +	void *tx_sw_ring;
>>>>> +	volatile void *tx_ring;
>>>>> +	uint16_t *tx_next_dd;
>>>>> +	uint16_t *nb_tx_free;
>>>>> +	uint16_t nb_tx_desc;
>>>>> +	uint16_t tx_rs_thresh;
>>>>> +	uint16_t tx_free_thresh;
>>>>> +} __rte_cache_min_aligned;
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> first of all it is not clear why this struct has to be in public
>>>> header, why it can't be in on of ethdev 'private' headers.
>>>> Second it looks like a snippet from private txq fields for some Intel
>>>> (and alike) PMDs (i40e, ice, etc.).
>>>> How it supposed to to be universal and be applicable for any PMD that
>>>> decides to implement this new API?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>     /* Generic Burst mode flag definition, values can be ORed. */
>>>>>
>>>>>     /**
>>>>> @@ -4718,6 +4735,27 @@ int rte_eth_remove_rx_callback(uint16_t
>>>> port_id, uint16_t queue_id,
>>>>>     int rte_eth_remove_tx_callback(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t queue_id,
>>>>>     		const struct rte_eth_rxtx_callback *user_cb);
>>>>>
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * Get the address which Tx data is stored.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * @param port_id
>>>>> + *   The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
>>>>> + * @param queue_id
>>>>> + *   The Tx queue on the Ethernet device for which information
>>>>> + *   will be retrieved.
>>>>> + * @param txq_data
>>>>> + *   A pointer to a structure of type *rte_eth_txq_data* to be filled.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * @return
>>>>> + *   - 0: Success
>>>>> + *   - -ENODEV:  If *port_id* is invalid.
>>>>> + *   - -ENOTSUP: routine is not supported by the device PMD.
>>>>> + *   - -EINVAL:  The queue_id is out of range.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +__rte_experimental
>>>>> +int rte_eth_tx_queue_data_get(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t queue_id,
>>>>> +		struct rte_eth_txq_data *txq_data);
>>>>> +
>>>>>     /**
>>>>>      * Retrieve information about given port's Rx queue.
>>>>>      *
>>>>> @@ -6209,6 +6247,63 @@ rte_eth_tx_buffer(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t
>>>> queue_id,
>>>>>     	return rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush(port_id, queue_id, buffer);
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * @warning
>>>>> + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this API may change, or be removed, without
>>>>> +prior notice
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Put Tx buffers into Rx sw-ring and rearm descs.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * @param port_id
>>>>> + *   Port identifying the receive side.
>>>>> + * @param queue_id
>>>>> + *   The index of the transmit queue identifying the receive side.
>>>>> + *   The value must be in the range [0, nb_rx_queue - 1] previously
>>>> supplied
>>>>> + *   to rte_eth_dev_configure().
>>>>> + * @param txq_data
>>>>> + *   A pointer to a structure of type *rte_eth_txq_data* to be filled.
>>>>> + * @return
>>>>> + *   The number of direct-rearmed buffers.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +__rte_experimental
>>>>> +static __rte_always_inline uint16_t
>>>>> +rte_eth_rx_direct_rearm(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t queue_id,
>>>>> +		struct rte_eth_txq_data *txq_data) {
>>>>> +	uint16_t nb_rearm;
>>>>> +	struct rte_eth_fp_ops *p;
>>>>> +	void *qd;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef RTE_ETHDEV_DEBUG_RX
>>>>> +	if (port_id >= RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS ||
>>>>> +			queue_id >= RTE_MAX_QUEUES_PER_PORT) {
>>>>> +		RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR,
>>>>> +			"Invalid port_id=%u or queue_id=%u\n",
>>>>> +			port_id, queue_id);
>>>>> +		return 0;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	p = &rte_eth_fp_ops[port_id];
>>>>> +	qd = p->rxq.data[queue_id];
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef RTE_ETHDEV_DEBUG_RX
>>>>> +	RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, 0);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (qd == NULL) {
>>>>> +		RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Invalid Rx queue_id=%u for
>>>> port_id=%u\n",
>>>>> +			queue_id, port_id);
>>>>> +		return 0;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (!p->rx_direct_rearm)
>>>>
>>>> This check should be done always (unconditionally).
>>>> it is not a mandatory function for the driver (it can safely skip to
>> implement it).
>>>>
>>>>> +		return -ENOTSUP;
>>>>
>>>> This function returns uint16_t, why signed integers here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	nb_rearm = p->rx_direct_rearm(qd, txq_data);
>>>>
>>>> So rx_direct_rearm() function knows how to extract data from TX queue?
>>>> As I understand that is possible only in one case:
>>>> rx_direct_rearm() has full knowledge and acess of txq internals, etc.
>>>> That means that rxq and txq have to belong to the same driver and
>>>> device type.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the comments, and I have some questions for this.
>>>
>>>> First of all, I still think it is not the best design choice.
>>>> If we going ahead with introducing this feature, it better be as
>>>> generic as possible.
>>>> Plus it mixes TX and RX code-paths together, while it would be much
>>>> better to to keep them independent as they are right now.
>>>>
>>>> Another thing with such approach - even for the same PMD, both TXQ
>>>> and RXQ can have different internal data format and behavior logic
>>>> (depending on port/queue configuration).
>>> 1. Here TXQ and RXQ have different internal format means the queue
>>> type and  descs can be different, right? If I understand correctly,
>>> based on your first strategy, is it means we will need different
>>> 'rearm_func' for different queue type in the same PMD?
>>
>> Yes, I think so.
>> If let say we have some PMD where depending on the config, there cpuld be
>> 2 different RXQ formats: rxq_a and rxq_b, and 2 different txq formats: txq_c,
>> txq_d.
>> Then assuming PMD would like to support direct-rearm mode for all four
>> combinations, it needs 4 different rearm functions:
>>
>> rearm_txq_c_to_rxq_a()
>> rearm_txq_c_to_rxq_b()
>> rearm_txq_d_to_rxq_a()
>> rearm_txq_d_to_rxq_b()
>>
> Thank you for your detailed explanation, I can understand this.
>>
>>>
>>>> So rx_direct_rearm() function selection have to be done based on both
>>>> RXQ and TXQ config.
>>>> So instead of rte_eth_tx_queue_data_get(), you'll probably need:
>>>> eth_rx_direct_rearm_t rte_eth_get_rx_direct_rearm_func(rx_port,
>>>> rx_queue, tx_port, tx_queue);
>>>> Then, it will be user responsibility to store it somewhere and call
>> periodically:
>>>>
>>>> control_path:
>>>> 	...
>>>> 	rearm_func = rte_eth_get_rx_direct_rearm_func(rxport, rxqueue,
>>>> 		 txport, txqueue);
>>>> data-path:
>>>> 	while(...) {
>>>> 		rearm_func(rxport, txport, rxqueue, txqueue);
>>>> 		rte_eth_rx_burst(rxport, rxqueue, ....);
>>>> 		rte_eth_tx_burst(txport, txqueue, ....);
>>>> 	}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In that case there seems absolutely no point to introduce struct
>>>> rte_eth_txq_data. rx_direct_rearm() accesses TXQ private data
>>>> directly anyway.
>>> 2. This is a very good proposal and it will be our first choice.
>>> Before working on it, I have a few questions about how to implement
>> 'rearm_func'.
>>> Like you say above, mixed Rx and Tx path code in 'rearm_func' means
>>> the hard-code is mixed like:
>>> rearm_func(...) {
>>>        ...
>>>       txep = &txq->sw_ring[txq->tx_next_dd - (txq->tx_rs_thresh - 1)];
>>>       for (...) {
>>>          rxep[i].mbuf = txep[i].mbuf;
>>>          mb0 = txep[i].mbuf;
>>>          paddr = mb0->buf_iova + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
>>>         dma_addr0 = vdupq_n_u64(paddr);
>>>         vst1q_u64((uint64_t *)&rxdp++->read, dma_addr0);
>>>       }
>>> }
>>> Is my understanding is right?
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I don't understand the question.
>> Can you probably elaborate a bit?
> 
> Sorry for my unclear expression.
> 
> I mean if we need two func which contains tx and rx paths code respectively in rearm_func, like:
> rearm_func(...) {
>           rte_tx_fill_sw_ring;
>           rte_rx_rearm_descs;
> }
> 
> Or just mixed tx and rx path code like I said before. I prefer 'rx and tx hard code mixed',
> because from the performance perspective, this can reduce the cost of function calls.

I suppose it depends on what we choose:
If we restrict it in a way that rxq and txq have to belong to
the same PMD, then I suppose this decision could be left to each
particular PMD.
If we'd like to allow rearm to work accross different PMDs
(i.e. it would allow to rearm mlx with ice and visa-versa),
then yes we need PMDs somehow to expose rx_sw_ring abstraction
to each other.
My preference would be the second one - as it will make this feature
more flexible and would help to adopt it more widely.
Though the first one is probably easier to implement,
and as I udnerstand you are leaning towards the first one.

Konstantin



>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another way - make rte_eth_txq_data totally opaque and allow PMD to
>>>> store there some data that will help it to distinguish expected TXQ format.
>>>> That will allow PMD to keep rx_direct_rearm() the same for all
>>>> supported TXQ formats (it will make decision internally based on data
>>>> stored in txq_data).
>>>> Though in that case you'll probably need one more dev-op to free
>> txq_data.
>>>
>