From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"Horton, Remy" <remy.horton@intel.com>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
"Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
"Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
"Xing, Beilei" <beilei.xing@intel.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:57:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <97dc9f9d-041b-ef99-2ca6-1f557c4f6039@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180315143924.GA9172@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
On 3/15/2018 2:39 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:57:13PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 3/14/2018 9:36 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 09:02:47PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/2018 6:53 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 5:52 PM
>>>>>> To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>; Horton, Remy <remy.horton@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>>>>>> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei
>>>>>> <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/14/2018 5:23 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:13 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>>>>>>>> Cc: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Jingjing Wu
>>>>>>>> <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Beilei Xing
>>>>>>>> <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>;
>>>>>>>> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-
>>>>>>>> tuned Tx/Rx parameters
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2018 3:48 PM, Remy Horton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/03/2018 14:43, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can you please remove deprecation notice in this patch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Done.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> + /* Defaults for drivers that don't implement preferred
>>>>>>>>>>> + * queue parameters.
>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>> Not sure about having these defaults here. It is OK to have defaults
>>>>>>>> in driver,
>>>>>>>>>> in application or in config file, but I am not sure if putting them
>>>>>>>> into device
>>>>>>>>>> abstraction layer hides them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What about not providing any default in ethdev layer, and get zero
>>>>>>>> as invalid
>>>>>>>>>> when using them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is something I have been thinking about, and I am going to
>>>>>>>> remove
>>>>>>>>> them for the V2. Original motive was to avoid breaking testpmd for
>>>>>>>> PMDs
>>>>>>>>> that don't give defaults (i.e. almost all of them). The alternative
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> to put place-holders into all the PMDs themselves, but I am not sure
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> this is appropriate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think preferred values should be optional, PMD should have right to
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> provide any. Implementation in 4/4 forces preferred values, either in
>>>>>>>> all PMDs
>>>>>>>> or in ethdev layer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about changing approach in application:
>>>>>>>> is preferred value provided [1] ?
>>>>>>>> yes => use it by sending value 0
>>>>>>>> no => use application provided value, same as now, so control should
>>>>>>>> be in
>>>>>>>> application.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am aware this breaks the comfort of just providing 0 and PMD values
>>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>>> used but covers the case there is no PMD values.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>> it can be possible to check if preferred value provided by comparing 0,
>>>>>>>> but if 0
>>>>>>>> is a valid value that can be problem. It may not be problem with
>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>> variables but it may be when this struct extended, it may be good to
>>>>>>>> think about
>>>>>>>> alternative here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think we should use the condition of "yes => use it by sending value 0". That is non-intuitive. Ideally, the application should query
>>>>>> and then if query responds with value as '0' (which can be valid for some variables in future), it sends its own value to setup functions
>>>>>> (whether '0' or something else, in case of 0 response, would depend on the knob).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, at that stage application already knows what is the preferred value and
>>>>>> can directly use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will it be too much to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Adding a new field into "rte_eth_[rt]xconf" to say if exists prefer PMD
>>>>>> values. "prefer_device_values" ?
>>>>>> Application can provide values as usual, but if that field is set, abstraction
>>>>>> layer overwrites the application values with PMD preferred ones. If there is no
>>>>>> PMD preferred values continue using application ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Add a bitwise "is_set" field to new "preferred_size" struct, which may show
>>>>>> status of other fields in the struct, if PMD set a valid value for them or not,
>>>>>> so won't have to rely on the 0 check.
>>>>>
>>>>> That all seems like too much hassle for such small thing.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough.
>>>>
>>>>> If we really want to allow PMD not to provide preferred values -
>>>>> then instead of adding rte_eth_dev_pref_info into dev_info we can simply
>>>>> introduce a new optional ethdev API call:
>>>>> rte_eth_get_pref_params() or so.
>>>>> If the PMD doesn’t want to provide preferred params to the user it simply
>>>>> wouldn't implement that function.
>>>>
>>>> Same can be done with updated rte_eth_dev_info.
>>>> Only application needs to check and use PMD preferred values, so this will mean
>>>> dropping "pass 0 to get preferred values" feature in initial set.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>> I actually don't see the issue with having ethdev provide reasonable
>>> default values. If those don't work for a driver, then let the driver
>>> provide it's own values. If the defaults don't work for an app, then let
>>> the app override the provided values.
>>>
>>> It really is going to make the app writers job easier if we do things this
>>> way. The only thing you are missing is the info as to whether it's ethdev
>>> or the driver that's providing the values, but in the case that it's
>>> ethdev, then the driver by definition "doesn't care", so we can treat them
>>> as driver provided values. What's the downside?
>> Abstraction layer having hardcoded config options doesn't look right to me. In
>> long term who will ensure to make those values relevant?
>>
>
> Let me turn that question around - in the long-term how likely are the
> values to change significantly? Also, long-term all PMDs should provide
> their own default values and then we can remove the values in the ethdev
> layer.
>
>> When application provides a value of 0, it won't know if it is using PMD
>> preferred values or some other defaults, what if application explicitly wants
>> use PMD preferred values?
>
> If the PMD has preferred values, they will be automatically used. Is there
> are case where the app would actually care about it? If the driver doesn't
> provide default values, how is the app supposed to know what the correct
> value for that driver is? And if the app *does* know what the best value
> for a driver is - even if the driver itself doesn't, it can easily detect
> when a port is using the driver and provide it's own ring setup defaults.
> If you want, we can provide a flag field to indicate that fields are ethdev
> defaults not driver defaults or something, but I'm struggling to come up
> with a scenario where it would make a practical difference to an app.
>
>>
>> The new fields are very similar to "default_[rt]xconf" in dev_info. Indeed
>> perhaps we should use same naming convention because intention seems same.
>> And we can continue to use new fields same as how "default_[rt]xconf" used.
>>
>> What about having something like rte_eth_tx_queue_setup_relaxed() where
>> application really don't care about values, not sure why, which can get config
>> values as much as from PMDs and fill the missing ones with the values defined in
>> function?
>>
>
> Or how about having the ethdev defaults in the rx/tx setup function instead
> of in the dev_info one? If user specifies a zero size, we use the dev_info
> value if provided by driver, otherwise ethdev default. That allows the
> majority of apps to never worry about ring sizes, but for those that do,
> they can query the driver defaults directly, or if not present set their
> own.
OK this at least gives a way to application to know where defaults are coming from.
Hi Remy, Shreyansh,
What do you think about using a variable name consistent with existing
"default_[rt]xconf" in dev_info?
>
> /Bruce
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-15 14:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 74+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-07 12:08 [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Remy Horton
2018-03-07 12:08 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-14 12:28 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-14 14:09 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-14 14:43 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-14 15:10 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-15 9:02 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-14 15:48 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-14 16:42 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-14 17:23 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-14 17:52 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-14 18:53 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-03-14 21:02 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-14 21:36 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-03-15 13:57 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-15 14:39 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-03-15 14:57 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2018-03-16 13:54 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-16 14:18 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-03-16 15:36 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-20 15:03 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-21 10:14 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-21 13:56 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-20 14:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-21 6:51 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-21 10:02 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-21 10:45 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-15 12:51 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-03-15 13:57 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-15 14:42 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-03-07 12:08 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 2/4] net/e1000: add TxRx tuning parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-07 12:08 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] net/i40e: " Remy Horton
2018-03-07 12:08 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 4/4] testpmd: make use of per-PMD TxRx parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-21 14:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Remy Horton
2018-03-21 14:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-28 7:11 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-30 15:40 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-03-30 15:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-03-31 0:46 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-03-21 14:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] net/e1000: add TxRx tuning parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-21 14:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net/i40e: " Remy Horton
2018-03-21 14:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] testpmd: make use of per-PMD TxRx parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-28 7:18 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-04-03 11:00 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-31 0:01 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-03 8:49 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-27 18:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-30 10:34 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-31 0:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-04 17:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 " Remy Horton
2018-04-04 17:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-04 18:56 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-04-05 10:16 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-04 17:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] net/e1000: add TxRx tuning parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-04 17:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] net/i40e: " Remy Horton
2018-04-04 17:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] testpmd: make use of per-PMD TxRx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-06 14:49 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Remy Horton
2018-04-06 14:49 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-06 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/4] net/e1000: add TxRx tuning parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-06 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/4] net/i40e: " Remy Horton
2018-04-06 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/4] testpmd: make use of per-PMD TxRx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-09 12:55 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-04-09 14:38 ` Remy Horton
2018-04-10 4:18 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-04-10 6:09 ` Remy Horton
2018-04-10 6:39 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-04-06 17:01 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-10 9:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 " Remy Horton
2018-04-10 9:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-10 9:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/4] net/e1000: add TxRx tuning parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-10 9:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/4] net/i40e: " Remy Horton
2018-04-10 9:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 4/4] testpmd: make use of per-PMD TxRx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-10 12:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-10 18:56 ` 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=97dc9f9d-041b-ef99-2ca6-1f557c4f6039@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=beilei.xing@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=remy.horton@intel.com \
--cc=shreyansh.jain@nxp.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=wenzhuo.lu@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).