From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974A1A04AB; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:52:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A871C0BD; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:52:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537CA1C0B7 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:51:59 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Nov 2019 04:51:58 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,281,1569308400"; d="scan'208";a="377755792" Received: from fyigit-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.96]) ([10.237.221.96]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2019 04:51:49 -0800 To: Matan Azrad , Dekel Peled , "john.mcnamara@intel.com" , "marko.kovacevic@intel.com" , "nhorman@tuxdriver.com" , "ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com" , "somnath.kotur@broadcom.com" , "anatoly.burakov@intel.com" , "xuanziyang2@huawei.com" , "cloud.wangxiaoyun@huawei.com" , "zhouguoyang@huawei.com" , "wenzhuo.lu@intel.com" , "konstantin.ananyev@intel.com" , Shahaf Shuler , Slava Ovsiienko , "rmody@marvell.com" , "shshaikh@marvell.com" , "maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" , "tiwei.bie@intel.com" , "zhihong.wang@intel.com" , "yongwang@vmware.com" , Thomas Monjalon , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" , "jingjing.wu@intel.com" , "bernard.iremonger@intel.com" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" References: <4c64b7941e1e9416ae7946cb44d50a01888d70c4.1573129825.git.dekelp@mellanox.com> <0523c7d7-bc97-7e30-c024-e578f9548797@intel.com> <0a1708e5-70ba-16f8-29b0-bef8d4f20f80@intel.com> From: Ferruh Yigit Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=ferruh.yigit@intel.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFXZCFABEADCujshBOAaqPZpwShdkzkyGpJ15lmxiSr3jVMqOtQS/sB3FYLT0/d3+bvy qbL9YnlbPyRvZfnP3pXiKwkRoR1RJwEo2BOf6hxdzTmLRtGtwWzI9MwrUPj6n/ldiD58VAGQ +iR1I/z9UBUN/ZMksElA2D7Jgg7vZ78iKwNnd+vLBD6I61kVrZ45Vjo3r+pPOByUBXOUlxp9 GWEKKIrJ4eogqkVNSixN16VYK7xR+5OUkBYUO+sE6etSxCr7BahMPKxH+XPlZZjKrxciaWQb +dElz3Ab4Opl+ZT/bK2huX+W+NJBEBVzjTkhjSTjcyRdxvS1gwWRuXqAml/sh+KQjPV1PPHF YK5LcqLkle+OKTCa82OvUb7cr+ALxATIZXQkgmn+zFT8UzSS3aiBBohg3BtbTIWy51jNlYdy ezUZ4UxKSsFuUTPt+JjHQBvF7WKbmNGS3fCid5Iag4tWOfZoqiCNzxApkVugltxoc6rG2TyX CmI2rP0mQ0GOsGXA3+3c1MCdQFzdIn/5tLBZyKy4F54UFo35eOX8/g7OaE+xrgY/4bZjpxC1 1pd66AAtKb3aNXpHvIfkVV6NYloo52H+FUE5ZDPNCGD0/btFGPWmWRmkPybzColTy7fmPaGz cBcEEqHK4T0aY4UJmE7Ylvg255Kz7s6wGZe6IR3N0cKNv++O7QARAQABtCVGZXJydWggWWln aXQgPGZlcnJ1aC55aWdpdEBpbnRlbC5jb20+iQJUBBMBCgA+AhsDAh4BAheABQsJCAcDBRUK CQgLBRYCAwEAFiEE0jZTh0IuwoTjmYHH+TPrQ98TYR8FAl1meboFCQlupOoACgkQ+TPrQ98T YR9ACBAAv2tomhyxY0Tp9Up7mNGLfEdBu/7joB/vIdqMRv63ojkwr9orQq5V16V/25+JEAD0 60cKodBDM6HdUvqLHatS8fooWRueSXHKYwJ3vxyB2tWDyZrLzLI1jxEvunGodoIzUOtum0Ce gPynnfQCelXBja0BwLXJMplM6TY1wXX22ap0ZViC0m714U5U4LQpzjabtFtjT8qOUR6L7hfy YQ72PBuktGb00UR/N5UrR6GqB0x4W41aZBHXfUQnvWIMmmCrRUJX36hOTYBzh+x86ULgg7H2 1499tA4o6rvE13FiGccplBNWCAIroAe/G11rdoN5NBgYVXu++38gTa/MBmIt6zRi6ch15oLA Ln2vHOdqhrgDuxjhMpG2bpNE36DG/V9WWyWdIRlz3NYPCDM/S3anbHlhjStXHOz1uHOnerXM 1jEjcsvmj1vSyYoQMyRcRJmBZLrekvgZeh7nJzbPHxtth8M7AoqiZ/o/BpYU+0xZ+J5/szWZ aYxxmIRu5ejFf+Wn9s5eXNHmyqxBidpCWvcbKYDBnkw2+Y9E5YTpL0mS0dCCOlrO7gca27ux ybtbj84aaW1g0CfIlUnOtHgMCmz6zPXThb+A8H8j3O6qmPoVqT3qnq3Uhy6GOoH8Fdu2Vchh TWiF5yo+pvUagQP6LpslffufSnu+RKAagkj7/RSuZV25Ag0EV9ZMvgEQAKc0Db17xNqtSwEv mfp4tkddwW9XA0tWWKtY4KUdd/jijYqc3fDD54ESYpV8QWj0xK4YM0dLxnDU2IYxjEshSB1T qAatVWz9WtBYvzalsyTqMKP3w34FciuL7orXP4AibPtrHuIXWQOBECcVZTTOdZYGAzaYzxiA ONzF9eTiwIqe9/oaOjTwTLnOarHt16QApTYQSnxDUQljeNvKYt1lZE/gAUUxNLWsYyTT+22/ vU0GDUahsJxs1+f1yEr+OGrFiEAmqrzpF0lCS3f/3HVTU6rS9cK3glVUeaTF4+1SK5ZNO35p iVQCwphmxa+dwTG/DvvHYCtgOZorTJ+OHfvCnSVjsM4kcXGjJPy3JZmUtyL9UxEbYlrffGPQ I3gLXIGD5AN5XdAXFCjjaID/KR1c9RHd7Oaw0Pdcq9UtMLgM1vdX8RlDuMGPrj5sQrRVbgYH fVU/TQCk1C9KhzOwg4Ap2T3tE1umY/DqrXQgsgH71PXFucVjOyHMYXXugLT8YQ0gcBPHy9mZ qw5mgOI5lCl6d4uCcUT0l/OEtPG/rA1lxz8ctdFBVOQOxCvwRG2QCgcJ/UTn5vlivul+cThi 6ERPvjqjblLncQtRg8izj2qgmwQkvfj+h7Ex88bI8iWtu5+I3K3LmNz/UxHBSWEmUnkg4fJl Rr7oItHsZ0ia6wWQ8lQnABEBAAGJAjwEGAEKACYCGwwWIQTSNlOHQi7ChOOZgcf5M+tD3xNh HwUCXWZ5wAUJB3FgggAKCRD5M+tD3xNhH2O+D/9OEz62YuJQLuIuOfL67eFTIB5/1+0j8Tsu o2psca1PUQ61SZJZOMl6VwNxpdvEaolVdrpnSxUF31kPEvR0Igy8HysQ11pj8AcgH0a9FrvU /8k2Roccd2ZIdpNLkirGFZR7LtRw41Kt1Jg+lafI0efkiHKMT/6D/P1EUp1RxOBNtWGV2hrd 0Yg9ds+VMphHHU69fDH02SwgpvXwG8Qm14Zi5WQ66R4CtTkHuYtA63sS17vMl8fDuTCtvfPF HzvdJLIhDYN3Mm1oMjKLlq4PUdYh68Fiwm+boJoBUFGuregJFlO3hM7uHBDhSEnXQr5mqpPM 6R/7Q5BjAxrwVBisH0yQGjsWlnysRWNfExAE2sRePSl0or9q19ddkRYltl6X4FDUXy2DTXa9 a+Fw4e1EvmcF3PjmTYs9IE3Vc64CRQXkhujcN4ZZh5lvOpU8WgyDxFq7bavFnSS6kx7Tk29/ wNJBp+cf9qsQxLbqhW5kfORuZGecus0TLcmpZEFKKjTJBK9gELRBB/zoN3j41hlEl7uTUXTI JQFLhpsFlEdKLujyvT/aCwP3XWT+B2uZDKrMAElF6ltpTxI53JYi22WO7NH7MR16Fhi4R6vh FHNBOkiAhUpoXRZXaCR6+X4qwA8CwHGqHRBfYFSU/Ulq1ZLR+S3hNj2mbnSx0lBs1eEqe2vh cA== Message-ID: <60dc4ef1-7e9a-5073-c534-e3b7a42a9abf@intel.com> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:51:48 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] ethdev: support API to set max LRO packet size X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 11/8/2019 11:56 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: > > > From: Ferruh Yigit >> On 11/8/2019 10:10 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Ferruh Yigit >>>> On 11/8/2019 6:54 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit >>>>>> On 11/7/2019 12:35 PM, Dekel Peled wrote: >>>>>>> @@ -1266,6 +1286,18 @@ struct rte_eth_dev * >>>>>>> >>>>>> RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + /* >>>>>>> + * If LRO is enabled, check that the maximum aggregated >> packet >>>>>>> + * size is supported by the configured device. >>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>> + if (dev_conf->rxmode.offloads & >> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO) { >>>>>>> + ret = check_lro_pkt_size( >>>>>>> + port_id, dev_conf- >>>>>>> rxmode.max_lro_pkt_size, >>>>>>> + dev_info.max_lro_pkt_size); >>>>>>> + if (ret != 0) >>>>>>> + goto rollback; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + >>>>>> >>>>>> This check forces applications that enable LRO to provide >>>> 'max_lro_pkt_size' >>>>>> config value. >>>>> >>>>> Yes.(we can break an API, we noticed it) >>>> >>>> I am not talking about API/ABI breakage, that part is OK. >>>> With this check, if the application requested LRO offload but not >>>> provided 'max_lro_pkt_size' value, device configuration will fail. >>>> >>> Yes >>>> Can there be a case application is good with whatever the PMD can >>>> support as max? >>> Yes can be - you know, we can do everything we want but it is better to be >> consistent: >>> Due to the fact of Max rx pkt len field is mandatory for JUMBO offload, max >> lro pkt len should be mandatory for LRO offload. >>> >>> So your question is actually why both, non-lro packets and LRO packets max >> size are mandatory... >>> >>> >>> I think it should be important values for net applications management. >>> Also good for mbuf size managements. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> - Why it is mandatory now, how it was working before if it is >>>>>> mandatory value? >>>>> >>>>> It is the same as max_rx_pkt_len which is mandatory for jumbo frame >>>> offload. >>>>> So now, when the user configures a LRO offload he must to set max >>>>> lro pkt >>>> len. >>>>> We don't want to confuse the user here with the max rx pkt len >>>> configurations and behaviors, they should be with same logic. >>>>> >>>>> This parameter defines well the LRO behavior. >>>>> Before this, each PMD took its own interpretation to what should be >>>>> the >>>> maximum size for LRO aggregated packets. >>>>> Now, the user must say what is his intension, and the ethdev can >>>>> limit it >>>> according to the device capability. >>>>> By this way, also, the PMD can organize\optimize its data-path more. >>>>> Also, the application can create different mempools for LRO queues >>>>> to >>>> allow bigger packet receiving for LRO traffic. >>>>> >>>>>> - What happens if PMD doesn't provide 'max_lro_pkt_size', so it is '0'? >>>>> Yes, you can see the feature description Dekel added. >>>>> This patch also updates all the PMDs support an LRO for non-0 value. >>>> >>>> Of course I can see the updates Matan, my point is "What happens if >>>> PMD doesn't provide 'max_lro_pkt_size'", >>>> 1) There is no check for it right, so it is acceptable? >>> >>> There is check. >>> If the capability is 0, any non-zero configuration will fail. >>> >>>> 2) Are we making this filed mandatory to provide for PMDs, it is easy >>>> to make new fields mandatory for PMDs but is this really necessary? >>> >>> Yes, for consistence. >>> >>>>> >>>>> as same as max rx pkt len, no? >>>>> >>>>>> - What do you think setting 'max_lro_pkt_size' config value to what >>>>>> PMD provided if application doesn't provide it? >>>>> Same answers as above. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If application doesn't care the value, as it has been till now, and >>>> not provided explicit 'max_lro_pkt_size', why not ethdev level use >>>> the value provided by PMD instead of failing? >>> >>> Again, same question we can ask on max rx pkt len. >>> >>> Looks like the packet size is very important value which should be set by >> the application. >>> >>> Previous applications have no option to configure it, so they haven't >> configure it, (probably cover it somehow) I think it is our miss to supply this >> info. >>> >>> Let's do it in same way as we do max rx pkt len (as this patch main idea). >>> Later, we can change both to other meaning. >>> >> >> I think it is not a good reason to introduce a new mandatory config option for >> application because of 'max_rx_pkt_len' does it. > > It is mandatory only if LRO offload is configured. > >> Will it work, if: >> - If application doesn't provide this value, use the PMD max > > May cause a problem if the mbuf size is not enough for the PMD maximum. OK, this is what I was missing, for this case I was thinking max_rx_pkt_len will be used but you already explained that application may want to use different mempools for LRO queues. For this case shouldn't PMDs take the 'rxmode.max_lro_pkt_size' into account and program the device accordingly (of course in LRO enabled case) ? This part seems missing and should be highlighted to other PMD maintainers. > >> - If both application and PMD doesn't provide this value, fail on configure()? > > It will work. > In my opinion - not ideal. > > Matan > >