From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>,
Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@arknetworks.am>,
Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>,
Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>,
Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>,
Aman Singh <aman.deep.singh@intel.com>,
Yuying Zhang <yuying.zhang@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Hanumanth Reddy Pothula <hpothula@marvell.com>,
Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>,
Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] app/testpmd: add command to process Rx metadata negotiation
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 12:29:29 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <056883f1-72c8-3540-b2ad-e12d1cfc4dae@oktetlabs.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALBAE1Mbd7-uAJLULqrXs9Rrk=y+Li9yHP+FmDZucoSJej5Ctg@mail.gmail.com>
On 2/1/23 12:14, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 2:37 PM Andrew Rybchenko
> <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/1/23 12:05, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 01/02/2023 10:00, Ori Kam:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for jumping in late,
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2023 10:53
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 12:46 PM Andrew Rybchenko
>>>>> <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/1/23 09:10, Ivan Malov wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since making automatic, or implicit, offload decisions does
>>>>>>> not belong in testpmd responsibility domain, it should be
>>>>>>> safer to avoid calling the "negotiate metadata delivery"
>>>>>>> API with some default selection unless the user asks to
>>>>>>> do so explicitly, via internal CLI or app options.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With that in mind, port config <port_id> ... sounds OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PMDs that support flow primitives which can generate metadata
>>>>>>> but, if in started state, can't enable its delivery may pass
>>>>>>> appropriate rte_error messages to the user suggesting
>>>>>>> they enable delivery of such metadata from NIC to PMD
>>>>>>> first. This way, if the person operating testpmd
>>>>>>> enters a flow create command and that fails,
>>>>>>> they can figure out the inconsistency, stop
>>>>>>> the port, negotiate, start and try again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for non-debug applications, their developers shall
>>>>>>> be properly informed about the problem of enabling
>>>>>>> delivery of metadata from NIC to PMD. This way,
>>>>>>> they will invoke the negotiate API by default
>>>>>>> in their apps, with the feature selection (eg.
>>>>>>> MARK) as per nature of the app's business.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This API should indeed be helpful to some PMDs with
>>>>>>> regard to collecting upfront knowledge like this.
>>>>>>> At the same time, should be benign to those PMDs
>>>>>>> who do not need this knowledge and can enable
>>>>>>> delivery of metadata right when inserting the
>>>>>>> flow rules. So I hope the API does not create
>>>>>>> too much discomfort to vendors not needing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 31/01/2023 17:17, Jerin Jacob:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 8:31 PM Thomas Monjalon
>>>>> <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 27/01/2023 11:42, Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram:
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 27/01/2023 06:02, Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ferruh is proposing to have a command "port config <port_id>
>>>>> ..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the flags to negotiate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you OK with this approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we are fine to have such command to enable and disable the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default being it disabled if supported by PMD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is default being disabled fine if the feature is supported by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMD ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the default should be enabled for ease of use.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since testpmd is used extensively for benchmarking purposes, we
>>>>>>>>>>> thought it should have minimum features
>>>>>>>>>>> enabled by default. The default testpmd doesn't have any Rx/Tx
>>>>>>>>>>> offloads enabled(except for FAST FREE), default
>>>>>>>>>>> fwd mode being "iofwd" and the Rx metadata is only referenced
>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> dumping packets.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have similar features disables by default?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean do we know features in testpmd which require a "double
>>>>>>>>>>>> enablement"
>>>>>>>>>>>> like one configuration command + one rte_flow rule?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Spec itself is that way i.e "RTE_FLOW_RULE +
>>>>>>>>>>> RX_METADATA_NEGOTIATE(once)"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't it enough if
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> #1 We have enough print when rte_flow is being create without
>>>>>>>>>>> negotiation done and ask user to enable rx metadata using
>>>>>>>>>>> "port config <port_id>..."
>>>>>>>>>>> #2 Provide testpmd app arg to enable Rx metadata(for example "
>>>>>>>>>>> --rx-metadata") like other features to avoid calling another
>>>>>>>>>>> command before rte flow create.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what is best.
>>>>>>>>>> I will let others discuss this part.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMO, enabling something always defeat the purpose to negotiate. IMO,
>>>>>>>>> someone needs to negotiate
>>>>>>>>> for a feature if the feature is needed. I think, the double enablement
>>>>>>>>> is part of the spec itself. In case, The PMD
>>>>>>>>> drivers won't like double enablement, no need to implement the PMD
>>>>>>>>> callback. That way, there is no change in the existing flow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reason why cnxk driver thought of leveraging negotiate() feature
>>>>>>>>> so that it helps for optimization. e.s.p
>>>>>>>>> function template for multiprocess case as we know what features
>>>>>>>>> needed in fastpath upfront.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there still concerns with patch we can take up this to TB decide
>>>>>>>>> one way or another to make forward progress. Let us know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ferruh, Andrew, Ori, Ivan, what is your opinion?
>>>>>>>> Let's progress with this patch to make it in -rc1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I understand all agreed that we need testpmd command to
>>>>>> control negotiated Rx metadata. May be even command-line
>>>>>> option would be useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, remaining question is what should be the default value in
>>>>>> testpmd. Note that it is just testpmd question since default
>>>>>> value in an abstract application is nothing negotiated
>>>>>> (if I'm not mistaken).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key advantaan ge of the current behaviour is to avoid
>>>>>> "double-enabling" in testpmd. It preserves behaviour which
>>>>>> we had before before the API addition. It is a strong
>>>>>> argument. Basically it puts the feature into the same
>>>>>> basket as FAST_FREE - need an action to run faster.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think, there is a disconnect here. FAST_FREE is enabled by default.
>>
>> Sorry, I'm lost here. Don't we need to enable FAST_FREE
>> offload? As far as I know all offloads are disabled by default.
>
> Not the case for FAST_FREE as disabling needs "more cycles on processor" side.
>
> See app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> /*
> * Ethernet device configuration.
> */
> struct rte_eth_rxmode rx_mode;
>
> struct rte_eth_txmode tx_mode = {
> .offloads = RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_MBUF_FAST_FREE,
> };
>
Surprised, thanks. So, it one more difference of the testpmd
defaults from an abstract application.
>>
>>>>> i.e We don't need any specific action to run faster. To align with performance
>>>>> test application, by default the configuration should be run faster. User
>>>>> needs to give explicit configuration to allow more offload or the one causes
>>>>> the mpps drops. IMO, That is the theme followed in testpmd.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I agree with Andrew, the default should stay the same, as now, PMD may already implement
>>>> logic to only enable the feature if there is a flow rule.
>>>> Changing the default will result in breaking applications.
>>>
>>> That's not what is discussed here.
>>> We are talking only about testpmd default.
>>>
>>>> I want to suggest new approach for this feature,
>>>> maybe we can use the rte_flow_configure, and add a new bit that says if those
>>>> actions are going to be used.
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Let's not change the API please.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I see no problem in such approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key disadvantage is the difference in testpmd and
>>>>>> other applications default behaviour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd look at the feature in the following way:
>>>>>> if an application theoretically wants to use
>>>>>> USER_FLAG, USER_MARK or TUNNEL_ID it must negotiate
>>>>>> corresponding Rx metadata to ensure that the feature is
>>>>>> available and HW is informed that application may need it.
>>>>>> Since testpmd supports corresponding flow API actions and
>>>>>> flow tunnels, it tries to negotiate it by default, but do
>>>>>> not fail if the negotiation fails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I'd would vote to keeping the default value as is.
Two above paragraphs still stand.
Frankly speaking I don't understand why default value is so
important if we have a way to change it. Reasons should be
really strong to change existing defaults.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-01 9:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-01 4:41 [PATCH] app/testpmd: add command line argument 'rx-metadata' Hanumanth Pothula
2022-08-01 13:11 ` Hanumanth Pothula
2022-08-01 13:13 ` Hanumanth Pothula
2022-08-01 19:41 ` Ivan Malov
2022-08-02 16:45 ` [PATCH] app/testpmd: add command line argument 'nic-to-pmd-rx-metadata' Hanumanth Pothula
2022-08-02 16:45 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] version: 22.11-rc0 Hanumanth Pothula
2022-08-02 16:45 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] app/testpmd: add command line argument 'nic-to-pmd-rx-metadata' Hanumanth Pothula
2022-08-02 17:51 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] " Hanumanth Pothula
2022-08-30 12:36 ` Hanumanth Reddy Pothula
2022-09-01 8:03 ` Singh, Aman Deep
2022-10-04 14:48 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-06 18:35 ` [PATCH v3 1/1] app/testpmd: control passing Rx metadata to PMD Hanumanth Pothula
2022-10-17 8:32 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-27 7:34 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-10-27 12:54 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-12-02 16:14 ` [EXT] " Hanumanth Reddy Pothula
2022-12-02 19:41 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-12-05 7:59 ` Hanumanth Reddy Pothula
2022-12-05 8:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-12-05 9:43 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2022-12-20 20:02 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] ethdev: control Rx metadata negotiation Hanumanth Pothula
2022-12-20 20:02 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] app/testpmd: add command to process " Hanumanth Pothula
2022-12-20 21:23 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-12-21 2:07 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] ethdev: fix ethdev configuration state on reset Hanumanth Pothula
2022-12-21 2:07 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] app/testpmd: add command to process Rx metadata negotiation Hanumanth Pothula
2023-01-18 10:32 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-19 10:33 ` [EXT] " Hanumanth Reddy Pothula
2023-01-25 12:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-24 18:04 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-01-25 9:30 ` [EXT] " Hanumanth Reddy Pothula
2023-01-25 12:55 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-25 13:55 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-01-25 13:59 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-25 14:42 ` Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram
2023-01-26 11:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-27 5:02 ` Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram
2023-01-27 8:54 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-27 10:42 ` Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram
2023-01-27 15:01 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-31 16:17 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-01-31 23:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-01 6:10 ` Ivan Malov
2023-02-01 7:16 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2023-02-01 8:53 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-02-01 9:00 ` Ori Kam
2023-02-01 9:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-01 9:07 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2023-02-01 9:14 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-02-01 9:29 ` Andrew Rybchenko [this message]
2023-02-01 10:48 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-02-01 10:58 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2023-02-01 11:04 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-01 11:15 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-02-01 11:35 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-02-01 13:48 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-02-01 14:50 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-02-01 15:22 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-02-02 8:43 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-02-02 8:50 ` Ivan Malov
2023-02-02 9:17 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-02-02 10:41 ` Ivan Malov
2023-02-02 10:48 ` Ivan Malov
2023-02-02 11:41 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-02 11:55 ` Ivan Malov
2023-02-02 12:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-02 12:21 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2023-02-01 11:20 ` Ivan Malov
2023-01-25 13:17 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-01-25 13:21 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-01-25 13:21 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-01-16 10:43 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] ethdev: fix ethdev configuration state on reset Hanumanth Reddy Pothula
2023-01-18 10:29 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-24 18:14 ` Ferruh Yigit
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=056883f1-72c8-3540-b2ad-e12d1cfc4dae@oktetlabs.ru \
--to=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=aman.deep.singh@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
--cc=hpothula@marvell.com \
--cc=ivan.malov@arknetworks.am \
--cc=ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
--cc=ndabilpuram@marvell.com \
--cc=orika@nvidia.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=viacheslavo@nvidia.com \
--cc=yuying.zhang@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).