DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: oulijun <oulijun@huawei.com>,
	xiaolong.ye@intel.com, qi.z.zhang@intel.com
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, linuxarm@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: configure rxd and txd number correctly
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 14:29:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <de5a5fda-58a6-d4e9-eb3b-dcb564cc6603@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fdabd9e4-cfa5-c9e4-9577-af07affa1a34@huawei.com>

On 4/18/2020 3:30 AM, oulijun wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2020/4/18 8:42, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>> On 4/17/2020 11:59 AM, Lijun Ou wrote:
>>> When users configure rxds and txds by used port config cmd based
>>> on testpmd application, it will not be able to configure rxd and
>>> txd according to the max capability range supported by the actual
>>> NIC hardware. Due testpmd defects, it can only configure a fixed
>>> range to 0 to 2048.
>>> The final result is that an incorrect printing prompt appears and
>>> cannot be applied using rxd && txd according to the actual
>>> capabilities supported by the device.
>>> In order to solve the above problems, we modify the testpmd. First
>>> by calling the rte_eth_dev_info_get api to obtain the max and min
>>> rx/tx capability supported by the hns3, and then use this range
>>> to compare with the actual value by users configured and make
>>> reasonable limitation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <oulijun@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> @@ -1212,6 +1383,8 @@ init_config(void)
>>>   	lcoreid_t  lc_id;
>>>   	uint8_t port_per_socket[RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES];
>>>   	struct rte_gro_param gro_param;
>>> +	uint16_t allowed_max_rxd;
>>> +	uint16_t allowed_max_txd;
>>>   	uint32_t gso_types;
>>>   	uint16_t data_size;
>>>   	bool warning = 0;
>>> @@ -1239,6 +1412,9 @@ init_config(void)
>>>   		fwd_lcores[lc_id]->cpuid_idx = lc_id;
>>>   	}
>>>   
>>> +	allowed_max_rxd = RTE_TEST_RX_DESC_MAX;
>>> +	allowed_max_txd = RTE_TEST_RX_DESC_MAX;
>>> +
>>>   	RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(pid) {
>>>   		port = &ports[pid];
>>>   		/* Apply default TxRx configuration for all ports */
>>> @@ -1299,6 +1475,13 @@ init_config(void)
>>>   				warning = 1;
>>>   			}
>>>   		}
>>> +
>>> +		/* Get the maximum number of txd and rxd per queue. */
>>> +		if (port->dev_info.tx_desc_lim.nb_max > allowed_max_rxd)
>>> +			allowed_max_txd = port->dev_info.tx_desc_lim.nb_max;
>>> +
>>> +		if (port->dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_max > allowed_max_txd)
>>> +			allowed_max_rxd = port->dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_max;
>>>   	}
>>>   
>>>   	if (warning)
>>> @@ -1317,9 +1500,9 @@ init_config(void)
>>>   	if (param_total_num_mbufs)
>>>   		nb_mbuf_per_pool = param_total_num_mbufs;
>>>   	else {
>>> -		nb_mbuf_per_pool = RTE_TEST_RX_DESC_MAX +
>>> +		nb_mbuf_per_pool = allowed_max_rxd +
>>>   			(nb_lcores * mb_mempool_cache) +
>>> -			RTE_TEST_TX_DESC_MAX + MAX_PKT_BURST;
>>> +			allowed_max_txd + MAX_PKT_BURST;
>>
>> Overall patch looks good, but with above change, for the PMDs that doesn't
>> explicitly set 'dev_info.tx_desc_lim.nb_max' gets the default value
>> 'UINT16_MAX', like virtual PMDs, and this increases the memmory requirement a lot.
>>
> Hi,Ferruh
>    Thanks. if some PMDs are not configured according to the 
> specifications that are actually supported, does the PMDs driver require 
> such a large mbuf by default.
>> What do you think to keep "port config all rxd|txd <value>" the fix, but remove
>> above nb_mbuf change?
> Actually, I agree with your suggestion. But at the same time worry about 
> whether mbuf is not enough, when rxd/txd is greater that 
> RTE_TEST_TX_DESC_MAX

That is valid concern I think, but user can override the number of mbufs with
"--total-num-mbufs" parameter, and if device has more than 2048 descriptor the
user can provide bigger numbers with this param.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-20 13:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-17 10:59 Lijun Ou
2020-04-18  0:42 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-04-18  2:30   ` oulijun
2020-04-20 13:29     ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2020-04-21  1:19       ` oulijun
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-04-17  9:47 Lijun Ou

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=de5a5fda-58a6-d4e9-eb3b-dcb564cc6603@intel.com \
    --to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=oulijun@huawei.com \
    --cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=xiaolong.ye@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).