From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D016B4415D; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:55:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC25402DC; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:55:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oo1-f45.google.com (mail-oo1-f45.google.com [209.85.161.45]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C2440289 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:55:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oo1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5ba090b0336so2929189eaf.1 for ; Wed, 05 Jun 2024 06:55:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1717595754; x=1718200554; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SPrvdiAzC2OOhm44Bnla2wTOyUYWxs5Kiph8fJluIYo=; b=B7XFd6YLocLhTPB2/2dc5iIQQkI5gDsUC3K+Vy5hqXN6xKXZRKNkL5yKcCXi4DmRGd 2hMbEw+hJZTR8i9ozJGj/x2YsGsCLFHCzel19UEouR9pZWMOlwaAssZoq331k0kXVZLs 7AtcBDoaAjdAOO0vKW54iMb5jVBO8wYgdHiOc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1717595754; x=1718200554; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=SPrvdiAzC2OOhm44Bnla2wTOyUYWxs5Kiph8fJluIYo=; b=EO79nbNPJl8NtOtLjuav7IPBptE7ycET8rAzrr8hfY1HatvQjmRB/cp82levFe44gt +ZBXA+KamDPCIDp0x1QSPz3alSOTSQpFHsOEPAOEpN813r0jLU94htTUO6Zu7yOZpc9V fOsdYfV/J9oxBTmZIVjmSoIEgDjmfqodeae6BEFI87U8jwPF8Jby7qi922rlextljPsz izwqACu5UkHNbp/2bI3+c98wpjfDJrQXQG570vbmwkzkP8xkUk/tT8/jITDbk/bLvUxT 3ZmRImOKyt6h13r8zkqVN1HTP3h797O2WtspvWjMFkBQVGll76R1PrfJulvwezaZn1RV nThQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVHtywtOrnSd4GLjScwJ/HsVTyou9iEKAdEBqpjgvl71tGDUOQUNZAYhc+LNqUeA52HrBggQ4nBQcHrz9Q= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyv1QVByy91naRN/AFOKCnLXH9VKRDBJb9gmYCaU2bRWzFS1Ejn 764RM1RRKeO5qExzP6/ACrenetGEurFDsFmzls7fkcShEIuEgHCVipPg/nj5hR863sp78qrE6XR fvNA0xqEYxJWoiFGj0U3P9+SixsHGbWyTHNeRog== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEfkv/uAMrq6gQ2XIItABml017SNH1DJtmOCgmKsJH1w3UYSHhiihXGu9PY5ug2K0agwU7jQXAt/z6zMp0s2Uk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6820:808:b0:5ba:6687:a4dd with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5ba7912cd3cmr3193201eaf.8.1717595754285; Wed, 05 Jun 2024 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240301155416.96960-1-juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech> <20240411084829.64984-1-juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech> In-Reply-To: From: Patrick Robb Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 09:55:43 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] dts: skip test cases based on capabilities To: jspewock@iol.unh.edu Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Juraj_Linke=C5=A1?= , thomas@monjalon.net, Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, paul.szczepanek@arm.com, npratte@iol.unh.edu, dev@dpdk.org, Luca Vizzarro Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cd6cc5061a24ec25" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org --000000000000cd6cc5061a24ec25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:44=E2=80=AFPM Luca Vizzarro wrote: > > In my testing of Jeremy's patches which depend on this one ("Add second > scatter test case"), I've discovered that the Intel E810-C NIC I am > using to test does not automatically show "RX scattered packets: on". > But I've noticed it does if the MTU is set to something big like 9000. > > I've tested a change of this by adding: > > self.set_port_mtu(0, 9000) > > + rxq_info =3D self.send_command(command) > self.set_port_mtu(1, 9000) > > And it seems to work alright. I've also tested this specific change with > Mellanox NICs and it didn't seem to affect them at all. No errors or > problems and they still showed "RX scattered packets: off" as expected. > > The `set_port_mtu` method comes from Jeremy's patch... > > > Hi Jeremy, Sounds like Luca's way ahead of me here, but I wanted to note that I did run from the capabilities patch + Jeremy's new Scatter patch, across these NICs: Mellanox CX5 Broadcom 57414 25G Broadcom P2100G Intel XL710 40G And in call cases scatter_mbuf_2048 skips, and scatter_mbuf_2048_with_offload runs. The 2nd case passed in all cases, excluding the XL710 where it errors with "Test pmd failed to set fwd mode to mac." I can double check that to ensure there was no setup error on my part, but I think the more interesting part is the skip on the non-offload testcase, as I recall Jeremy saying that the XL710 was expected to natively support scatter and run the first testcase. I can do a rerun, adding in the MTU modifier, and see if the same adjustment happens as with the E810 as Luca describes. --000000000000cd6cc5061a24ec25 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:44=E2=80= =AFPM Luca Vizzarro <Luca.Vizza= rro@arm.com> wrote:

In my testing of Jeremy's patches which depend on this one ("Add s= econd
scatter test case"), I've discovered that the Intel E810-C NIC I a= m
using to test does not automatically show "RX scattered packets: on&qu= ot;.
But I've noticed it does if the MTU is set to something big like 9000.<= br>
I've tested a change of this by adding:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0self.set_port_mtu(0, 9000)
> +=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 rxq_info =3D self.send_command(command) =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0self.set_port_mtu(1, 9000)

And it seems to work alright. I've also tested this specific change wit= h
Mellanox NICs and it didn't seem to affect them at all. No errors or problems and they still showed "RX scattered packets: off" as exp= ected.

The `set_port_mtu` method comes from Jeremy's patch...



Hi Jeremy,

So= unds like Luca's way ahead of me here, but I wanted to note that I did = run from the capabilities=C2=A0patch=C2=A0+ Jeremy's new Scatter patch,= across these NICs:

Mellanox CX5
Broadco= m 57414 25G
Broadcom P2100G=C2=A0
Intel XL710 40G=C2=A0=

And in call cases=C2=A0scatter_mbuf_2048 skips, a= nd=C2=A0scatter_mbuf_2048_with_offload runs.=C2=A0

The 2nd case passed in all cases, excluding the XL710 where it errors with= "Test pmd failed to set fwd mode to mac." I can double check tha= t to ensure there was no setup error on my part, but I think the more inter= esting part is the skip on the non-offload testcase, as I recall Jeremy say= ing that the XL710 was expected to natively support scatter and run the fir= st testcase.

I can do a rerun, adding in the M= TU modifier, and see if the same adjustment happens as with the E810 as Luc= a describes.
--000000000000cd6cc5061a24ec25--