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 EA99BA04C8; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:41:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E3B1DB20; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:41:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ot1-f65.google.com (mail-ot1-f65.google.com [209.85.210.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 363C21DB19 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:41:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ot1-f65.google.com with SMTP id 60so6317575otw.3 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:41:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pcnaT8bVSsDQ6ASdWubQWbdkiDeEczt8KAGFr1gLjGE=; b=SFbUMLp5OipbD44OndygRIn0yybvPuF8pIiL2jhqLykxyrnODFcGnkJm3ip4ppsXki kphhpMFv6dtwZkdPTJHHE/N371ykC65QZql4j3153ZFnmoZIft2ieEediqV+dK543+T3 o1AHVCLwkEpI1Yz9xQR47jte2ak/n6DDDxHG4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pcnaT8bVSsDQ6ASdWubQWbdkiDeEczt8KAGFr1gLjGE=; b=s28YEfYRBgKNaiR0SMrq2SwadOWeMZ51XGtWCvSNWI2RLSYaCkAd9x8aMAwiQvcsJB LQRc+Y3c5dpvMQ84s5lTBj7z6RZ5MzHDD3CGLg0HojbsPl0P+tpzeTseRWS+bzFUhsRr C/98KmEFsL6PtFI57S6fhiOcTCvLz5lsIVTxVCqKuLzHMZ/aITYHQ6tCDeRXk4uztvf0 HsPW4Ho9c6smwtYdawXpGDGS57wxe6xty/zom5hJKQNsO9jEV8wvMiLHej1HUvUJXfOj qYQeCI26yATFs34m/ZKm/Wc3ee1kyWtF0rce73aBQ/e8J8anBpV4xgrmo55802mjCG0k hYsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532m9afuTgdnWZ8/SrSuw+9ShLKBa0lLxbG9Mbb+J5w9z9j7GPGR zJ+Qv2QyHw0edC546In2iMeOHyRbKB55nVqiD4dO0A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJydIhXxVInZYthaJyt3JAurCEZb8v/x58X14j1AYWrejwvI0uZmot9AKG+wBNnYKmP4QxI54LaY7EbpFc3mh8w= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:1cae:: with SMTP id l46mr24161791ota.172.1600454493259; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200909155302.28656-1-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> <20200909155302.28656-3-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: From: Lance Richardson Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:41:22 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Ajit Khaparde , Somnath Kotur , dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 02/12] net/bnxt: fix rxq/txq get information 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 Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:41 AM Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > - qinfo->conf.rx_drop_en = 0; > > + qinfo->conf.rx_drop_en = 1; > > Why 0 is wrong but 1 is correct? > > Technically 'rx_drop_en' is a user configuration, which is set via > 'rte_eth_rx_queue_setup()' API. > > bnxt seems not honoring this config option at all. > > Based on HW capability, I think two things can be done, > 1) Configure the HW based on config request, and return configured value in > 'bnxt_rxq_info_get_op()'. see 'ixgbe'. > > 2) If HW is not configurable, check the value in 'rte_eth_rx_queue_setup()' > a) return error if unsupported value requested. see 'sfc'. > b) log a warning and overwrite the requested config with whatever supported. > And for both a & b, return current config in the 'bnxt_rxq_info_get_op()' > > > qinfo->conf.rx_deferred_start = rxq->rx_deferred_start; > > + qinfo->conf.offloads = dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads; > Hi Ferruh, Apologies, this somehow didn't make it to my inbox. I believe case (2) applies here, rx_drop_en is not currently configurable in hw, so this change was intended to accurately report the effective value. I'm not sure whether (2a) or (2b) would be better, but (2b) seems less likely to cause issues for existing applications. > > This is for queue specific offloads, you are returning port offloads. > As far as I can see bnxt doesn't have any queue specific offload, so this can be > dropped. It wasn't clear to me whether this was intended to report the difference between the offload configuration for the queue and the offload configuration for the port or the effective offload configuration for the queue. I noticed that several other PMDs (e.g. mlx5, netvsc, sfc) report the offload configuration for the port in rx/tx_queue_info_get(). The sfc PMD reports the offload configuration for the port combined with queue-specific offloads, based on those examples this seemed to be correct. I guess you're saying those are also incorrect? Thanks, Lance