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 64E72A09DF; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:23:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA1FC940; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:23:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D589C910 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:23:49 +0100 (CET) IronPort-SDR: 3c/8H0gmxWYRAGx80rgGg2K2NPMoesWsnwlQvXB8pogEqLou+ABefInEK48fFe6V/E/WNM644c 68CoDQYhEdwQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9823"; a="152997368" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,389,1599548400"; d="scan'208";a="152997368" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Dec 2020 02:18:48 -0800 IronPort-SDR: voAw/NU5mhygvgyOxadYTUAs0oVHmsmz7pDbbhoHbgd25lyl9gfEZW0aa9WSItzTXdPFsC2j+o A7HnfG+6KxOw== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,389,1599548400"; d="scan'208";a="540077533" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.231.20]) ([10.213.231.20]) by fmsmga005-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Dec 2020 02:18:46 -0800 To: Slava Ovsiienko , NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon , "Wei Hu (Xavier)" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "xavier.huwei@huawei.com" References: <20200818120254.72792-1-huwei013@chinasoftinc.com> <20200925124719.26001-4-huwei013@chinasoftinc.com> <3600731.79S79Y1HSu@thomas> <7b31a7ca-a29a-cc7a-7ed7-d22497eb6244@intel.com> <3bdc98c4-4b31-8bdf-4d06-7da699d0d4a8@intel.com> <7d973575-3593-1536-60c3-7bb84b7bbd01@intel.com> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:18:30 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove restriction on txpkts set 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 12/3/2020 9:45 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote: > Hi, Ferruh > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ferruh Yigit >> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 14:07 >> To: Slava Ovsiienko ; NBU-Contact-Thomas >> Monjalon ; Wei Hu (Xavier) >> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; xavier.huwei@huawei.com >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove restriction on >> txpkts set >> >> On 11/27/2020 1:05 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 14:38 >>>> To: Slava Ovsiienko ; NBU-Contact-Thomas >>>> Monjalon ; Wei Hu (Xavier) >>>> >>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; xavier.huwei@huawei.com >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove >>>> restriction on txpkts set >>>> >>>> On 11/26/2020 7:24 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote: >>>>> The bug: >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbu >>>>> gs >>>>> >>>> >> .dpdk.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D584&data=04%7C01%7Cviacheslavo >>>> %40n >>>>> >>>> >> vidia.com%7Ce52ba5bbab184ac8592808d8920842c5%7C43083d15727340c1b7 >>>> db39e >>>>> >>>> >> fd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637419911462011700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 >>>> d8eyJWIjo >>>>> >>>> >> iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000 >>>> & >>>>> >>>> >> ;sdata=QBB67WqEjUHgwqHNjqx2VLdaTRMzMeodh%2B%2FVFsHByQg%3D&am >>>> p;reserved >>>>> =0 >>>>> >>>>> Can we pass the nb_segs = 1 always? >>>>> One descriptor is minimal basic capability to send, it should be >>>>> always >>>> supported. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Slava, >>>> >>>> I didn't get your comment, can you please elaborate? >>>> >>> The --txpkts is rejected on testpmd startup due to port is not >>> configured yet and we can't find out how many descriptors are actually >>> configured in the Tx queues. >>> >>> Configuring Tx queues with zero descriptors seems to be meaningless, >>> it would disable a basic capability to send the packets. And we could >>> assume the single segment packet sending is always supported. >>> >>> If --txpkts sets only the size for the single segment we can assume >>> that the packets with only one segment is going to be sent, and we >>> could ignore the Tx queue descriptor number check for the case. >>> >> >> Overall I was OK to remove the check completely, even multi segment used it >> is very unlikely that number of segments will be more than descriptor size. >> >> But at least OK to ignore the check for single segment, also we can force '--txd' >> parameter provided to enable '--txpkts', like done before. > > OK, I'll provide the patch taking both approaches on testpmd startup: > - if --txd is specified the check will be done against it, failed check for non-configured port will be ignored > - if there is the only one segment specified in txpkts, failed check for non-configured port will be ignored > Sounds good, thank you. > With best regards, Slava > >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> With best regards, Slava >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 16:07 >>>>>> To: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon ; Wei Hu >>>>>> (Xavier) >>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; xavier.huwei@huawei.com; Slava Ovsiienko >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove >>>>>> restriction on txpkts set >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/24/2020 12:23 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/24/2020 10:27 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>>>>> Is it OK to keep this regression? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ferruh, what do you suggest? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I confirm the '--txpkts' parameter is broken now, I suggest >>>>>>> submitting a defect for it and continue with the regression. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Slava, >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you please submit the Bugzilla defect? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> ferruh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> We have alternative for the parameter, "set txpkts " >>>> command. >>>>>>> The parameter was only working when hardcoded '--txd=N' parameter is >>>>>>> provided, the command is more dynamic and works however queue size >>>>>>> is >>>>>> configured. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We can fix the '--txpkts' in next release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 23/11/2020 12:50, Slava Ovsiienko: >>>>>>>>> Hi,  Wei >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It was found this patch rejects the --txpkts command line settings. >>>>>>>>> set_tx_pkt_segments() is called before device started and we have >>>>>>>>> failure chain: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> set_tx_pkt_segments() >>>>>>>>>    nb_segs_is_invalid() >>>>>>>>>      get_tx_ring_size () >>>>>>>>>       rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get() >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It causes --txpkts testpmd command line option is ignored. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> With best regards, Slava >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: dev On Behalf Of Wei Hu (Xavier) >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 15:47 >>>>>>>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org >>>>>>>>>> Cc: xavier.huwei@huawei.com >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove >>>>>>>>>> restriction on txpkts set >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: Chengchang Tang >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Currently, if nb_txd is not set, the txpkts is not allowed to be >>>>>>>>>> set because the nb_txd is used to avoid the numer of segments >>>>>>>>>> exceed the Tx ring size and the default value of nb_txd is 0. And >>>>>>>>>> there is a bug that nb_txd is the global configuration for Tx >>>>>>>>>> ring size and the ring size could be changed by some command per >>>> queue. >>>>>>>>>> So these valid check is unreliable and introduced unnecessary >>>>>>>>>> constraints. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This patch adds a valid check function to use the real Tx ring >>>>>>>>>> size to check the validity of txpkts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release") >>>>>>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> v3 -> v4: >>>>>>>>>>      add check 'rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get()' return value and >>>>>>>>>>      if it is '-ENOSTUP' calculate the 'ring_size'. >>>>>>>>>> v3:      initial version. >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>   app/test-pmd/config.c | 64 >>>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- >>>>>>>>>>   1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c index >>>>>>>>>> 6496d2f..8ebb927 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c >>>>>>>>>> @@ -1893,6 +1893,38 @@ tx_queue_id_is_invalid(queueid_t >> txq_id) >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>   static int >>>>>>>>>> +get_tx_ring_size(portid_t port_id, queueid_t txq_id, uint16_t >>>>>>>>>> +*ring_size) { >>>>>>>>>> +    struct rte_port *port = &ports[port_id]; >>>>>>>>>> +    struct rte_eth_txq_info tx_qinfo; >>>>>>>>>> +    int ret; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +    ret = rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get(port_id, txq_id, &tx_qinfo); >>>>>>>>>> +    if (ret == 0) { >>>>>>>>>> +        *ring_size = tx_qinfo.nb_desc; >>>>>>>>>> +        return ret; >>>>>>>>>> +    } >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +    if (ret != -ENOTSUP) >>>>>>>>>> +        return ret; >>>>>>>>>> +    /* >>>>>>>>>> +     * If the rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get is not support for this >>>>>>>>>> +PMD, >>>>>>>>>> +     * ring_size stored in testpmd will be used for validity >> verification. >>>>>>>>>> +     * When configure the txq by rte_eth_tx_queue_setup with >>>>>>>>>> nb_tx_desc >>>>>>>>>> +     * being 0, it will use a default value provided by PMDs to >>>>>>>>>> +setup this >>>>>>>>>> +     * txq. If the default value is 0, it will use the >>>>>>>>>> +     * RTE_ETH_DEV_FALLBACK_TX_RINGSIZE to setup this txq. >>>>>>>>>> +     */ >>>>>>>>>> +    if (port->nb_tx_desc[txq_id]) >>>>>>>>>> +        *ring_size = port->nb_tx_desc[txq_id]; >>>>>>>>>> +    else if (port->dev_info.default_txportconf.ring_size) >>>>>>>>>> +        *ring_size = >>>>>>>>>> +port->dev_info.default_txportconf.ring_size; >>>>>>>>>> +    else >>>>>>>>>> +        *ring_size = RTE_ETH_DEV_FALLBACK_TX_RINGSIZE; >>>>>>>>>> +    return 0; >>>>>>>>>> +} >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +static int >>>>>>>>>>   rx_desc_id_is_invalid(uint16_t rxdesc_id)  { >>>>>>>>>>       if (rxdesc_id < nb_rxd) >>>>>>>>>> @@ -2986,17 +3018,41 @@ show_tx_pkt_segments(void) >>>>>>>>>>       printf("Split packet: %s\n", split); >>>>>>>>>>   } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +static bool >>>>>>>>>> +nb_segs_is_invalid(unsigned int nb_segs) { >>>>>>>>>> +    uint16_t ring_size; >>>>>>>>>> +    uint16_t queue_id; >>>>>>>>>> +    uint16_t port_id; >>>>>>>>>> +    int ret; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +    RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(port_id) { >>>>>>>>>> +        for (queue_id = 0; queue_id < nb_txq; queue_id++) { >>>>>>>>>> +            ret = get_tx_ring_size(port_id, queue_id, >>>>>>>>>> +&ring_size); >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +            if (ret) >>>>>>>>>> +                return true; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +            if (ring_size < nb_segs) { >>>>>>>>>> +                printf("nb segments per TX packets=%u >= " >>>>>>>>>> +                       "TX queue(%u) ring_size=%u - ignored\n", >>>>>>>>>> +                       nb_segs, queue_id, ring_size); >>>>>>>>>> +                return true; >>>>>>>>>> +            } >>>>>>>>>> +        } >>>>>>>>>> +    } >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +    return false; >>>>>>>>>> +} >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>   void >>>>>>>>>>   set_tx_pkt_segments(unsigned *seg_lengths, unsigned nb_segs) >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>       uint16_t tx_pkt_len; >>>>>>>>>>       unsigned i; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -    if (nb_segs >= (unsigned) nb_txd) { >>>>>>>>>> -        printf("nb segments per TX packets=%u >= nb_txd=%u - >>>>>>>>>> ignored\n", >>>>>>>>>> -               nb_segs, (unsigned int) nb_txd); >>>>>>>>>> +    if (nb_segs_is_invalid(nb_segs)) >>>>>>>>>>           return; >>>>>>>>>> -    } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>       /* >>>>>>>>>>        * Check that each segment length is greater or equal than >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> 2.9.5 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >