* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
2019-12-20 10:48 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set Viacheslav Ovsiienko
@ 2020-01-06 14:52 ` Matan Azrad
2020-01-08 8:51 ` Raslan Darawsheh
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Matan Azrad @ 2020-01-06 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Slava Ovsiienko, dev; +Cc: Raslan Darawsheh, Ori Kam, stable
From: Viacheslav Ovsiienko
> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy MPW
> and without inline was missed, and there was no valid selection for these
> options, patch adds the missing routine.
>
> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx descriptors")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
Acked-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
2019-12-20 10:48 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2020-01-06 14:52 ` Matan Azrad
@ 2020-01-08 8:51 ` Raslan Darawsheh
2020-01-08 14:53 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-09 11:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Viacheslav Ovsiienko
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Raslan Darawsheh @ 2020-01-08 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Slava Ovsiienko, dev; +Cc: Matan Azrad, Ori Kam, stable
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:48 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
>
> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with
> legacy MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no
> valid selection for these options, patch adds the missing
> routine.
>
> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx descriptors")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> index a7f3bff..57804f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> @@ -4984,6 +4984,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>
> +MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(mc_mpw,
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> +
> MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(i_mpw,
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> @@ -5140,6 +5144,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>
> +MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(mc_mpw,
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> +
> MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(i_mpw,
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
> " for requested offloads %04X",
> dev->data->port_id, olx);
> + assert(false);
> return NULL;
> }
> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
> --
> 1.8.3.1
Patch applied to next-net-mlx,
Kindest regards,
Raslan Darawsheh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
2019-12-20 10:48 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2020-01-06 14:52 ` Matan Azrad
2020-01-08 8:51 ` Raslan Darawsheh
@ 2020-01-08 14:53 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08 14:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-09 11:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Viacheslav Ovsiienko
3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2020-01-08 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viacheslav Ovsiienko, dev; +Cc: matan, rasland, orika, stable, Thomas Monjalon
On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with
> legacy MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no
> valid selection for these options, patch adds the missing
> routine.
>
> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx descriptors")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> index a7f3bff..57804f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> @@ -4984,6 +4984,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>
> +MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(mc_mpw,
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> +
> MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(i_mpw,
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> @@ -5140,6 +5144,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>
> +MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(mc_mpw,
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> +
> MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(i_mpw,
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
> " for requested offloads %04X",
> dev->data->port_id, olx);
> + assert(false);
Hi Slave,
I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally, specially in a
code that debug level log is printed.
> return NULL;
> }
> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
2020-01-08 14:53 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
@ 2020-01-08 14:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08 15:50 ` Slava Ovsiienko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2020-01-08 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viacheslav Ovsiienko, dev; +Cc: matan, rasland, orika, stable, Thomas Monjalon
On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with
>> legacy MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no
>> valid selection for these options, patch adds the missing
>> routine.
>>
>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx descriptors")
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 9 +++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
>> index a7f3bff..57804f5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
>> @@ -4984,6 +4984,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>>
>> +MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(mc_mpw,
>> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
>> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>> +
>> MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(i_mpw,
>> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>> @@ -5140,6 +5144,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>>
>> +MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(mc_mpw,
>> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
>> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>> +
>> MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(i_mpw,
>> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
>> " for requested offloads %04X",
>> dev->data->port_id, olx);
>> + assert(false);
>
> Hi Slave,
Sorry Slava, it must be auto-correction, I recognized a few milliseconds too late.
>
> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally, specially in a
> code that debug level log is printed.
>
>> return NULL;
>> }
>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
2020-01-08 14:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
@ 2020-01-08 15:50 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2020-01-08 15:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Slava Ovsiienko @ 2020-01-08 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ferruh Yigit, dev
Cc: Matan Azrad, Raslan Darawsheh, Ori Kam, stable, Thomas Monjalon
Hi, Ferruh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; stable@dpdk.org;
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
> routines set
>
> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> >> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy MPW
> >> and without inline was missed, and there was no valid selection for
> >> these options, patch adds the missing routine.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
> >> descriptors")
> >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 9 +++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> >> b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c index a7f3bff..57804f5 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> >> @@ -4984,6 +4984,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> >> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> >> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >>
> >> +MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(mc_mpw,
> >> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> >> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >> +
> >> MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(i_mpw,
> >> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> >> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >> @@ -5140,6 +5144,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> >> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> >> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >>
> >> +MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(mc_mpw,
> >> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> >> + MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >> +
> >> MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(i_mpw,
> >> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> >> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> >> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
> >> " for requested offloads %04X",
> >> dev->data->port_id, olx);
> >> + assert(false);
> >
> > Hi Slave,
>
> Sorry Slava, it must be auto-correction, I recognized a few milliseconds too
> late.
Just forget, it is not a problem. This typo happens from time to time 😊
And it seems to be a smaller evil than a permanent torturing my colleagues
with my full name "Viacheslav" 😊
>
> >
> > I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
> > specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
> >
> >> return NULL;
> >> }
> >> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result returned by
mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check against NULL and
report an error. "assert" is a temporary solution till this upgrade (in debug mode
we have a lot of messages and break on assert helps to locate the problem quickly,
reporting error will do the same).
With best regards, Slava
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
2020-01-08 15:50 ` Slava Ovsiienko
@ 2020-01-08 15:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-09 9:03 ` Slava Ovsiienko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2020-01-08 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Slava Ovsiienko, dev
Cc: Matan Azrad, Raslan Darawsheh, Ori Kam, stable, Thomas Monjalon
On 1/8/2020 3:50 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> Hi, Ferruh
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
>> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; stable@dpdk.org;
>> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
>> routines set
>>
>> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
>>>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy MPW
>>>> and without inline was missed, and there was no valid selection for
>>>> these options, patch adds the missing routine.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
>>>> descriptors")
>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
<...>
>>>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>>>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
>>>> " for requested offloads %04X",
>>>> dev->data->port_id, olx);
>>>> + assert(false);
<...>
>
>>
>>>
>>> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
>>> specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
>>>
>>>> return NULL;
>>>> }
>>>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
>
> Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result returned by
> mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check against NULL and
> report an error. "assert" is a temporary solution till this upgrade (in debug mode
> we have a lot of messages and break on assert helps to locate the problem quickly,
> reporting error will do the same).
>
Can it be possible to drop the patch from mlx tree and prepare a new version
without 'assert'?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
2020-01-08 15:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
@ 2020-01-09 9:03 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2020-01-09 10:50 ` Ferruh Yigit
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Slava Ovsiienko @ 2020-01-09 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ferruh Yigit, dev
Cc: Matan Azrad, Raslan Darawsheh, Ori Kam, stable, Thomas Monjalon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 17:55
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; stable@dpdk.org;
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
> routines set
>
> On 1/8/2020 3:50 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> > Hi, Ferruh
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
> >> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> >> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> >> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
> >> burst routines set
> >>
> >> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> >>>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy
> >>>> MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no valid selection
> >>>> for these options, patch adds the missing routine.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
> >>>> descriptors")
> >>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
>
> <...>
>
> >>>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> >>>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
> >>>> " for requested offloads %04X",
> >>>> dev->data->port_id, olx);
> >>>> + assert(false);
>
> <...>
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
> >>> specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
> >>>
> >>>> return NULL;
> >>>> }
> >>>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
> >
> > Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result returned by
> > mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check against NULL and
> > report an error. "assert" is a temporary solution till this upgrade
> > (in debug mode we have a lot of messages and break on assert helps to
> > locate the problem quickly, reporting error will do the same).
> >
>
> Can it be possible to drop the patch from mlx tree and prepare a new version
> without 'assert'?
The selection routine error handling is rather generic and is not merely related to ConnectX-4LX.
I propose to prepare the dedicated patch, what do you think?
With best regards, Slava
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
2020-01-09 9:03 ` Slava Ovsiienko
@ 2020-01-09 10:50 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-09 11:10 ` Slava Ovsiienko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2020-01-09 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Slava Ovsiienko, dev
Cc: Matan Azrad, Raslan Darawsheh, Ori Kam, stable, Thomas Monjalon
On 1/9/2020 9:03 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 17:55
>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
>> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; stable@dpdk.org;
>> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
>> routines set
>>
>> On 1/8/2020 3:50 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
>>> Hi, Ferruh
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
>>>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>>>> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
>>>> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
>>>> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
>>>> burst routines set
>>>>
>>>> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
>>>>>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy
>>>>>> MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no valid selection
>>>>>> for these options, patch adds the missing routine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
>>>>>> descriptors")
>>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>>>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>>>>>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
>>>>>> " for requested offloads %04X",
>>>>>> dev->data->port_id, olx);
>>>>>> + assert(false);
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
>>>>> specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result returned by
>>> mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check against NULL and
>>> report an error. "assert" is a temporary solution till this upgrade
>>> (in debug mode we have a lot of messages and break on assert helps to
>>> locate the problem quickly, reporting error will do the same).
>>>
>>
>> Can it be possible to drop the patch from mlx tree and prepare a new version
>> without 'assert'?
> The selection routine error handling is rather generic and is not merely related to ConnectX-4LX.
> I propose to prepare the dedicated patch, what do you think?
>
My concern is with the assert, the error handling can be another patch, but can
we have this change without an assert? Or perhaps a RTE_ASSERT() which is for debug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
2020-01-09 10:50 ` Ferruh Yigit
@ 2020-01-09 11:10 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2020-01-09 14:27 ` Raslan Darawsheh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Slava Ovsiienko @ 2020-01-09 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ferruh Yigit, dev
Cc: Matan Azrad, Raslan Darawsheh, Ori Kam, stable, Thomas Monjalon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 12:50
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; stable@dpdk.org;
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
> routines set
>
> On 1/9/2020 9:03 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 17:55
> >> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> >> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> >> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
> >> burst routines set
> >>
> >> On 1/8/2020 3:50 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> >>> Hi, Ferruh
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
> >>>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >>>> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> >>>> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> >>>> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
> >>>> burst routines set
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> >>>>>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy
> >>>>>> MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no valid
> >>>>>> selection for these options, patch adds the missing routine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
> >>>>>> descriptors")
> >>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>>>>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> >>>>>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx
> function"
> >>>>>> " for requested offloads %04X",
> >>>>>> dev->data->port_id, olx);
> >>>>>> + assert(false);
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
> >>>>> specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> return NULL;
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result returned
> >>> by mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check against NULL
> >>> and report an error. "assert" is a temporary solution till this
> >>> upgrade (in debug mode we have a lot of messages and break on assert
> >>> helps to locate the problem quickly, reporting error will do the same).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Can it be possible to drop the patch from mlx tree and prepare a new
> >> version without 'assert'?
> > The selection routine error handling is rather generic and is not merely
> related to ConnectX-4LX.
> > I propose to prepare the dedicated patch, what do you think?
> >
>
> My concern is with the assert, the error handling can be another patch, but
> can we have this change without an assert?
Yes, please: http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/64340/
With best regards, Slava
PS. Removing this assert urges me to add error handling ASAP 😊
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
2020-01-09 11:10 ` Slava Ovsiienko
@ 2020-01-09 14:27 ` Raslan Darawsheh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Raslan Darawsheh @ 2020-01-09 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Slava Ovsiienko, Ferruh Yigit, dev
Cc: Matan Azrad, Ori Kam, stable, Thomas Monjalon
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 1:10 PM
> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
> routines set
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 12:50
> > To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> > <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> stable@dpdk.org;
> > Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
> > routines set
> >
> > On 1/9/2020 9:03 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 17:55
> > >> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > >> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> > >> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> > >> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
> > >> burst routines set
> > >>
> > >> On 1/8/2020 3:50 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> > >>> Hi, Ferruh
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
> > >>>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > >>>> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> > >>>> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> > >>>> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
> > >>>> burst routines set
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > >>>>> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> > >>>>>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with
> > >>>>>> legacy MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no
> > >>>>>> valid selection for these options, patch adds the missing routine.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
> > >>>>>> descriptors")
> > >>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> > >>
> > >> <...>
> > >>
> > >>>>>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> > >>>>>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx
> > function"
> > >>>>>> " for requested offloads %04X",
> > >>>>>> dev->data->port_id, olx);
> > >>>>>> + assert(false);
> > >>
> > >> <...>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
> > >>>>> specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> return NULL;
> > >>>>>> }
> > >>>>>> DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result
> > >>> returned by mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check
> > >>> against NULL and report an error. "assert" is a temporary
> > >>> solution till this upgrade (in debug mode we have a lot of
> > >>> messages and break on assert helps to locate the problem quickly,
> reporting error will do the same).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Can it be possible to drop the patch from mlx tree and prepare a
> > >> new version without 'assert'?
> > > The selection routine error handling is rather generic and is not
> > > merely
> > related to ConnectX-4LX.
> > > I propose to prepare the dedicated patch, what do you think?
> > >
> >
> > My concern is with the assert, the error handling can be another
> > patch, but can we have this change without an assert?
>
> Yes, please: http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/64340/
>
> With best regards, Slava
>
> PS. Removing this assert urges me to add error handling ASAP 😊
This patch has been removed from next-net-mlx,
I'll apply the v2
Kindest regards,
Raslan Darawsheh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
2019-12-20 10:48 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set Viacheslav Ovsiienko
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-01-08 14:53 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
@ 2020-01-09 11:07 ` Viacheslav Ovsiienko
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Viacheslav Ovsiienko @ 2020-01-09 11:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev; +Cc: matan, rasland, orika, ferruh.yigit, stable
The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with
legacy MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no
valid selection for these options, patch adds the missing
routine.
Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx descriptors")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
---
v2: removes ambigous assert() to address the comment
v1: http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/64074/
drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
index a7f3bff..e39c5b9 100644
--- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
@@ -4984,6 +4984,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
+MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(mc_mpw,
+ MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
+ MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
+
MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(i_mpw,
MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
@@ -5140,6 +5144,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
+MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(mc_mpw,
+ MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
+ MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
+
MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(i_mpw,
MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread