From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015936CC9
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:51:20 +0200 (CEST)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32])
by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
26 Apr 2018 01:51:16 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,330,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="223493277"
Received: from fmsmsx106.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.204])
by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Apr 2018 01:51:16 -0700
Received: from FMSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.9) by
FMSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
id 14.3.319.2; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 01:51:16 -0700
Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.70) by
fmsmsx109.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
id 14.3.319.2; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 01:51:15 -0700
Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.210]) by
SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.240]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002;
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 16:51:09 +0800
From: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
CC: "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "Dai, Wei" <wei.dai@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v4] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads
Thread-Index: AQHT3LeEDHbKM45DqEOo6xDS9jmKXaQSqieQ//+EqACAAI5kQA==
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:51:08 +0000
Message-ID: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611531A8C0D@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <20180328085709.28310-1-wei.dai@intel.com>
<4bdecf05-3a7b-1e5d-8a3b-e71e0c37a74d@intel.com>
<039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611531A8BAE@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
<169440796.JqTBcgK5P9@xps>
In-Reply-To: <169440796.JqTBcgK5P9@xps>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNGU0YTE2ZjItZWZmZS00MDQyLWE5MjQtOWZjY2E2ZWY2OTc1IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjIuNS4xOCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJja2RiXC85MzVKMDlPQ2xCUzZQUTUwb3FrbDRcL05Sbndjelp0eEhGc0IxdG03YXFkUjZDWUdOSE52M1BpZ2s4bGgifQ==
x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.0.200.100
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:51:21 -0000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:19 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Dai, Wei <wei.dai@intel.com>;
> dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads
>=20
> 26/04/2018 09:59, Zhang, Qi Z:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Yigit, Ferruh
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 1:05 AM
> > > To: Dai, Wei <wei.dai@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net; Zhang, Qi Z
> > > <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads
> > >
> > > On 4/25/2018 12:50 PM, Wei Dai wrote:
> > > > This patch check if a requested offloading is supported in the
> > > > device capability.
> > > > Any offloading is disabled by default if it is not set in
> > > > rte_eth_dev_configure( ) and rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup().
> > > > A per port offloading can only be enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure(=
).
> > > > If a per port offloading is sent to rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ),
> > > > return error.
> > > > Only per queue offloading can be sent to rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup(=
).
> > > > A per queue offloading is enabled only if it is enabled in
> > > > rte_eth_dev_configure( ) OR if it is enabled in
> > > > rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ).
> > > > If a per queue offloading is enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure(),
> > > > it can't be disabled in rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ).
> > > > If a per queue offloading is disabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ),
> > > > it can be enabled or disabled( ) in rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ).
> > > >
> > > > This patch can make such checking in a common way in rte_ethdev
> > > > layer to avoid same checking in underlying PMD.
> > >
> > > Hi Wei,
> > >
> > > For clarification, there is existing API for rc1, and there is a
> > > suggested update in API for rc2. I guess this patch is for suggested =
update
> in rc2?
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Dai <wei.dai@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > v4: fix a wrong description in git log message.
> > > >
> > > > v3: rework according to dicision of offloading API in community
> > > >
> > > > v2: add offloads checking in rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
> > > > check if a requested offloading is supported.
> > > > ---
> > > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 76
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> > > > b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index f0f53d4..70a7904 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> > > > @@ -1196,6 +1196,28 @@ rte_eth_dev_configure(uint16_t port_id,
> > > uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
> > > > ETHER_MAX_LEN;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + /* Any requested offload must be within its device capability */
> > > > + if ((local_conf.rxmode.offloads & dev_info.rx_offload_capa) !=3D
> > > > + local_conf.rxmode.offloads) {
> > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=3D%d requested Rx
> > > offloads "
> > > > + "0x%" PRIx64 " doesn't match Rx offloads "
> > > > + "capability 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
> > > > + port_id,
> > > > + local_conf.rxmode.offloads,
> > > > + dev_info.rx_offload_capa);
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > > > + if ((local_conf.txmode.offloads & dev_info.tx_offload_capa) !=3D
> > > > + local_conf.txmode.offloads) {
> > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=3D%d requested Tx
> > > offloads "
> > > > + "0x%" PRIx64 " doesn't match Tx offloads "
> > > > + "capability 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
> > > > + port_id,
> > > > + local_conf.txmode.offloads,
> > > > + dev_info.tx_offload_capa);
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > > +1 having these checks here.
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > /*
> > > > * Setup new number of RX/TX queues and reconfigure device.
> > > > */
> > > > @@ -1547,6 +1569,33 @@ rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id,
> > > uint16_t rx_queue_id,
> > > > &local_conf.offloads);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Only per-queue offload can be enabled from application.
> > > > + * If any pure per-port offload is sent to this function, return
> -EINVAL
> > > > + */
> > > > + if ((local_conf.offloads & dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa) !=3D
> > > > + local_conf.offloads) {
> > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Ethdev port_id=3D%d
> rx_queue_id=3D%d "
> > > > + "Requested offload 0x%" PRIx64 "doesn't "
> > > > + "match per-queue capability 0x%" PRIx64
> > > > + " in rte_eth_rx_queue_setup( )\n",
> > > > + port_id,
> > > > + rx_queue_id,
> > > > + local_conf.offloads,
> > > > + dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa);
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > There is a change here. If requested offload is already enabled in
> > > port level, instead of returning error, ignore it.
> > > So this removes the restriction for apps that "only an offload from
> > > queue capabilities can be send for queue_setup() functions". This is
> > > not requirement for application as it has been before, but this is
> > > allowed for app now.
> > >
> > > If app tried to enable a port offload in queue level that is not
> > > already enabled, it should still return error.
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If a per-queue offload is enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ),
> > > > + * it is also enabled on all queues and can't be disabled here.
> > > > + * If it is diabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ), it can be enable=
d
> > > > + * or disabled here.
> > > > + * If a per-port offload is enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ),
> > > > + * it is also enabled for all queues here.
> > > > + */
> > > > + local_conf.offloads |=3D dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads;
> > >
> > > I didn't get this one, why add rxmode.offloads into queue offloads?
> > >
> > > Based on above change Thomas has an suggestion [1]:
> > >
> > > "
> > > In the case of offload already enabled at port level and repeated in
> > > queue setup, ethdev can avoid passing it to the PMD queue setup
> function.
> > > "
> > >
> > > So almost reverse of what you are doing, strip rxmode.offloads from
> > > local_conf.offloads for PMDs. What do you think?
> >
> > Should we do like below
> > local_conf.offloads |=3D dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads;
> > local_conf.offloads &=3D dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa
> >
> > I thinks it's better to only strip port offloads. But keep all queue
> > offload, since this is exact we going to configure the queue and
> > during device start, it can simply iterate on each bit on local_conf.of=
floads
> to turn on queue offload and don't need to worry about rxmode.offloads.
>=20
> No
> The offloads which are already enabled at port level does not need to be
> enabled again at queue level.
> But the PMD can decide to not configure the offload at port level for rea=
l,
> and configure the port offloads in every queue setups.
> It is an implementation choice, and can be different per-offload.
OK, got your point, that make sense.
> So it is simpler to filter such request for queue setups.
> This way, we will be sure that all offloads, requested in queue setup PMD
> function, must be setup for the queue.
> The PMD implementation will need to setup all the requested offloads in
> queue setup, plus the port offloads which were deferred to all queues.
>=20
> Hope it's clear.
>=20
>=20