From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>, Pascal Mazon <pascal.mazon@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Mordechay Haimovsky <motih@mellanox.com>,
Olga Shern <olgas@mellanox.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@mellanox.com>,
Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/tap: remove queue specific offload support
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:48:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d4ee2493-6681-5802-a79d-8a573471520b@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0501MB2314927B82A257D6BA943074D18F0@HE1PR0501MB2314.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
On 4/25/2018 10:18 AM, Ophir Munk wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
>
> I should have mentioned earlier that TAP does support queue specific capabilities.
> Please look in tap_queue_setup() and note that each TAP queue is created with a distinct file descriptor (fd).
> Then supporting an offload capability is just implementing it in SW (e.g. calculating IP checksum).
>
> If the main assumption of this patch was that TAP does not support queue specific offloads - then please consider this patch again.
Yes that was the initial question, is tap supports queue specific offloads or
not. Thanks for the answer.
>
> On the other hand there is no port specific capability supported by TAP.
If so verify functions are wrong, that was the error I got.
It seems copy/paste of mlx one but the port_supp_offloads has different meaning
there.
> However, in order to support legacy applications, port capabilities are usually reported as the OR operation between queue & port capabilities.
> TAP currently clones the queue capabilities to port capabilities. We could optimize this cloning by always return queue capabilities when queried about queues or ports. In this case - tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() and tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa() could be removed.
Instead of removing the functions I think you can keep them but return correct
values, in this case return empty, this will make the exiting validation
functions correct.
Can you send a fix for that?
If no fix sent, I suggest going with this patch to remove queue level offload
support until it is fixed.
>
> Please find more comments inline.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:54 PM
>> To: Pascal Mazon <pascal.mazon@6wind.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Mordechay
>> Haimovsky <motih@mellanox.com>; Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH v3] net/tap: remove queue specific offload support
>>
>> It is not clear if tap PMD supports queue specific offloads, removing the
>> related code.
>>
>> Fixes: 95ae196ae10b ("net/tap: use new Rx offloads API")
>> Fixes: 818fe14a9891 ("net/tap: use new Tx offloads API")
>> Cc: motih@mellanox.com
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>> ---
>> Cc: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>
>>
>> v2:
>> * rebased
>>
>> v3:
>> * txq->csum restored,
>> - ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE check removed since ethdev layer takes care of
>> it
>> - tx_conf != NULL check removed, this is internal api who calls this is
>> ethdev and it doesn't pass null tx_conf
>> ---
>> drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c | 102 +++++-------------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>> index ef33aace9..61b4b5df3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>> @@ -278,31 +278,6 @@ tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa(void)
>> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP;
>> }
>>
>> -static uint64_t
>> -tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa(void)
>> -{
>> - return DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER |
>> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM |
>> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM |
>> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM |
>> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP;
>> -}
>> -
>
> TAP PMD supports all of these RX queue specific offloads. I suggest to leave this function in place.
>
>> -static bool
>> -tap_rxq_are_offloads_valid(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint64_t offloads) -{
>> - uint64_t port_offloads = dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads;
>> - uint64_t queue_supp_offloads = tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa();
>> - uint64_t port_supp_offloads = tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa();
>> -
>> - if ((offloads & (queue_supp_offloads | port_supp_offloads)) !=
>> - offloads)
>> - return false;
>> - if ((port_offloads ^ offloads) & port_supp_offloads)
>> - return false;
>> - return true;
>> -}
>> -
>
> Putting aside the fact that queue offloads equals port offloads (so could ignore "port_supp_offload" variable) - this function is essential to validate that the configured Rx offloads are supported by TAP. I suggest to leave this function in place.
> Without it - testpmd falsely confirms non supported offloads.
> For example before this patch: offloading "hw-vlan-filter" will fail as expected:
>
> testpmd> port config all
> testpmd> port config all hw-vlan-filter on
> testpmd> port start all
> Configuring Port 0 (socket 0)
> PMD: net_tap0: 0x1209fc0: TX configured queues number: 1
> PMD: net_tap0: 0x1209fc0: RX configured queues number: 1
> PMD: 0x1209fc0: Rx queue offloads 0x120e don't match port offloads 0x120e or supported offloads 0x300e
> Fail to configure port 0 rx queues
>
> However, with this patch this configuration is falsely accepted.
>
>> /* Callback to handle the rx burst of packets to the correct interface and
>> * file descriptor(s) in a multi-queue setup.
>> */
>> @@ -411,31 +386,6 @@ tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa(void)
>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM;
>> }
>>
>> -static uint64_t
>> -tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa(void)
>> -{
>> - return DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MULTI_SEGS |
>> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM |
>> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM |
>> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM;
>> -}
>> -
>
> TAP PMD supports all of these TX queue specific offloads. I suggest to leave this function in place.
>
>> -static bool
>> -tap_txq_are_offloads_valid(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint64_t offloads) -{
>> - uint64_t port_offloads = dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads;
>> - uint64_t queue_supp_offloads = tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa();
>> - uint64_t port_supp_offloads = tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa();
>> -
>> - if ((offloads & (queue_supp_offloads | port_supp_offloads)) !=
>> - offloads)
>> - return false;
>> - /* Verify we have no conflict with port offloads */
>> - if ((port_offloads ^ offloads) & port_supp_offloads)
>> - return false;
>> - return true;
>> -}
>> -
>
> This function is essential to validate that the configured Tx offloads are supported by TAP.
> I suggest to leave this function in place.
>
>> static void
>> tap_tx_offload(char *packet, uint64_t ol_flags, unsigned int l2_len,
>> unsigned int l3_len)
>> @@ -763,12 +713,10 @@ tap_dev_info(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct
>> rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info)
>> dev_info->max_tx_queues = RTE_PMD_TAP_MAX_QUEUES;
>> dev_info->min_rx_bufsize = 0;
>> dev_info->speed_capa = tap_dev_speed_capa();
>> - dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa =
>> tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa();
>> - dev_info->rx_offload_capa = tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() |
>> - dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa;
>> - dev_info->tx_queue_offload_capa =
>> tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa();
>> - dev_info->tx_offload_capa = tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa() |
>> - dev_info->tx_queue_offload_capa;
>> + dev_info->rx_offload_capa = tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa();
>> + dev_info->tx_offload_capa = tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa();
>> + dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa = 0;
>> + dev_info->tx_queue_offload_capa = 0;
>> }
>>
>
> Rx_queue_offloads_capa should be reported as before:
> dev_info->tx_queue_offload_capa = tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa();
> Same for TX offloads.
>
> Port capabilities could return queue capabilities:
>
> Instead of:
>
> dev_info->rx_offload_capa = tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() |
> dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa;
>
> We could return:
>
> dev_info->rx_offload_capa = dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa;
>
> The same argument is valid for Tx as well.
>
>> static int
>> @@ -1094,19 +1042,6 @@ tap_rx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>> return -1;
>> }
>>
>> - /* Verify application offloads are valid for our port and queue. */
>> - if (!tap_rxq_are_offloads_valid(dev, rx_conf->offloads)) {
>> - rte_errno = ENOTSUP;
>> - RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD,
>> - "%p: Rx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64
>> - " don't match port offloads 0x%" PRIx64
>> - " or supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
>> - (void *)dev, rx_conf->offloads,
>> - dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads,
>> - (tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() |
>> - tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa()));
>> - return -rte_errno;
>> - }
>
> The tap_rxq_are_offloads_valid() call is essential. I suggest to leave it in place.
> The RTE_LOG could drop port references to become:
>
> RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD,
> "%p: Rx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64
> " don't match"
> " supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
> (void *)dev, rx_conf->offloads,
> tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa()));
>
>
>> rxq->mp = mp;
>> rxq->trigger_seen = 1; /* force initial burst */
>> rxq->in_port = dev->data->port_id;
>> @@ -1175,29 +1110,12 @@ tap_tx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>> return -1;
>> dev->data->tx_queues[tx_queue_id] = &internals->txq[tx_queue_id];
>> txq = dev->data->tx_queues[tx_queue_id];
>> - /*
>> - * Don't verify port offloads for application which
>> - * use the old API.
>> - */
>> - if (tx_conf != NULL &&
>> - !!(tx_conf->txq_flags & ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE)) {
>> - if (tap_txq_are_offloads_valid(dev, tx_conf->offloads)) {
>> - txq->csum = !!(tx_conf->offloads &
>> - (DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM |
>> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM |
>> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM));
>> - } else {
>> - rte_errno = ENOTSUP;
>> - RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD,
>> - "%p: Tx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64
>> - " don't match port offloads 0x%" PRIx64
>> - " or supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64,
>> - (void *)dev, tx_conf->offloads,
>> - dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads,
>> - tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa());
>> - return -rte_errno;
>> - }
>> - }
>> +
>
> The tap_txq_are_offloads_valid() call is essential. I suggest to leave it in place.
> The RTE_LOG message could drop comparison between queue and port capabilities:
>
> RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD,
> "%p: Tx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64
> " don't match"
> " supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64,
> (void *)dev, tx_conf->offloads,
> tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa());
>
>> + txq->csum = !!(tx_conf->offloads &
>> + (DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM |
>> + DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM |
>> + DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM));
>> +
>> ret = tap_setup_queue(dev, internals, tx_queue_id, 0);
>> if (ret == -1)
>> return -1;
>> --
>> 2.14.3
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-25 9:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-22 18:28 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-05 17:49 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-12 16:23 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-18 8:59 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-18 9:40 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-18 10:55 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-22 16:04 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-23 8:39 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-23 9:17 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-23 10:13 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-23 11:32 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-24 17:57 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-23 9:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-24 17:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-25 9:18 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-25 9:48 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2018-04-25 12:00 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-25 12:20 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-25 16:17 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-25 17:18 ` 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=d4ee2493-6681-5802-a79d-8a573471520b@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=motih@mellanox.com \
--cc=olgas@mellanox.com \
--cc=ophirmu@mellanox.com \
--cc=pascal.mazon@6wind.com \
--cc=rasland@mellanox.com \
--cc=shahafs@mellanox.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).