DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
To: "Zhao1, Wei" <wei.zhao1@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
	"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: fix Tx check descriptor status APIs error
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 07:47:06 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E706115323C83C@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A2573D2ACFCADC41BB3BE09C6DE313CA07DFEF88@PGSMSX103.gar.corp.intel.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhao1, Wei
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 2:49 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: fix Tx check descriptor status APIs error
> 
> Hi,qi
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zhang, Qi Z
> > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 10:49 AM
> > To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: fix Tx check descriptor status APIs
> > error
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Zhao1, Wei
> > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 9:58 AM
> > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: fix Tx check descriptor status APIs
> > > error
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Zhang, Qi Z
> > > > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:47 PM
> > > > To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: fix Tx check descriptor status
> > > > APIs error
> > > >
> > > > Hi Wei:
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Zhao1, Wei
> > > > > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 4:39 PM
> > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> > > > > <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org; Zhao1, Wei
> > > > > <wei.zhao1@intel.com>
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: fix Tx check descriptor status APIs
> > > > > error
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a issue involve RS bit set rule in ixgbe.
> > > > > Let us take function ixgbe_xmit_pkts_vec () as an example, in
> > > > > this function RS bit will be set for descriptor with index
> > > > > txq->tx_next_rs, and also descriptor free function
> > > > > ixgbe_tx_free_bufs() also check RS bit for descriptor with index
> > > > > txq->tx_next_rs, This is perfect ok. Let us take an example,
> > > > > if app set tx_rs_thresh = 32 and nb_desc = 512, then ixgbe PMD
> > > > > code will init
> > > > > txq->tx_next_rs = 31 in function ixgbe_reset_tx_queue when tx
> > > > > txq->queue
> > > > setup.
> > > > > And also txq->tx_next_rs will be update as 63, 95 and so on.
> > > > > But, in the function ixgbe_dev_tx_descriptor_status(), the RS
> > > > > bit to check is " desc = ((desc
> > > > > + txq->tx_rs_thresh - 1) /
> > > > > txq->tx_rs_thresh) * txq-tx_rs_thresh", which is 32 ,64, 96 and so on.
> > > > > So, they are all wrong! In tx function of
> > > > > ixgbe_xmit_pkts_simple, the RS bit rule is also the same, it also set
> index 31 ,64, 95.
> > > > > we need to correct it.
> > > >
> > > > One question:
> > > > does only the descriptor with RS bit will have DD status, or NIC
> > > > will always update all descriptor's DD status but this happens
> > > > when the next descriptor with RS bit has been sent?
> > > > If it is the first case, I think you fix still have problem,
> > > > because multi-seg mbuf or tso offload will break the 31, 63, 95
> > > > pattern
> > > > See:
> > > > 						nb_used = (uint16_t)(tx_pkt-
> > > > >nb_segs + new_ctx);
> > > >
> > > > 						if (txp != NULL &&
> > > >                                 nb_used + txq->nb_tx_used >=
> > > txq->tx_rs_thresh)
> > > >                         /* set RS on the previous packet in the burst
> */
> > > >                         txp->read.cmd_type_len |=
> > > >
> > > rte_cpu_to_le_32(IXGBE_TXD_CMD_RS);
> > > >
> > > > so the possible solution is store each RS position in a list at
> > > > tx, and find the next RS from the list in
> > > > ixgbe_dev_tx_descriptor_status
> > > >
> > > > If it is the second case, it will be simple we don't need to check
> > > > forward with tx_rs_thresh, just check the exact position ( I hope
> > > > it is this case :))
> > >
> > > In this patch, code "desc = txq->sw_ring[desc].last_id;" will get
> > > the last index for several segments packet, that  solve the case
> > > when packet contain more than one segment.
> >
> > Yes, but my understanding is we "set RS on the previous packet" but
> > not the packet cross tx_rs_thresh boundary So even without multi-seg ,
> > it will be 30, 62, 94, but not 31, 63, 95, probably the reason we
> > didn't see the issue, is because if we test it with 32 burst, the
> > latest packet still will be set RS, so it will be 30,31, 62,63, 94,
> > 95, but if we tested with 64 burst, I assume it will be 30, 62, 63, 94 ... right?
> >
> 
> Update to last mail.
> There are another RS bit set code, which set RS bit on last descriptor of the
> threshold packet.
> So, that is to say ixgbe_xmit_pkts() not only set 30 62 94, but also 31 63 95.
> And it also set the last packet of the burst, so we do not need fix this function,
> it is not bug.
> 
> 		/* Set RS bit only on threshold packets' last descriptor */
> 		if (txq->nb_tx_used >= txq->tx_rs_thresh) {
> 			PMD_TX_FREE_LOG(DEBUG,
> 					"Setting RS bit on TXD id="
> 					"%4u (port=%d queue=%d)",
> 					tx_last, txq->port_id, txq->queue_id);
> 
> 			cmd_type_len |= IXGBE_TXD_CMD_RS;
> 
> 			/* Update txq RS bit counters */
> 			txq->nb_tx_used = 0;
> 			txp = NULL;
> 		}

OK, but is this guarantee that slot 31, 63, 95 is always in the packet that cross tx_rx_thresh boundary?
Let's assume every packet has 5 seg, so in every 7 packet the last one will cross the boundary.
so it will be 
0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34,
35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69
Definitely, it is possible that last packet (and the previous before last) does not include 32*n-1
In ixgbe_xmit_cleanup, it use desc_to_clean_to = sw_ring[desc_to_clean_to].last_id + tx_rx_thresh to calculate next packet in boundary, that's no problem
But in ixgbe_dev_tx_descriptor_status, we assume the it is 31,63,95 pattern, that will be problem.



> 
> 
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Qi
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: a2919e13d95e ("net/ixgbe: implement descriptor status
> > > > > API")
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Zhao <wei.zhao1@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 12 ++++++------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> > > > > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c index 3e13d26..f185219 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> > > > > @@ -3146,15 +3146,15 @@ ixgbe_dev_tx_descriptor_status(void
> > > > *tx_queue,
> > > > > uint16_t offset)
> > > > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > >  	desc = txq->tx_tail + offset;
> > > > > +	if (desc >= txq->nb_tx_desc)
> > > > > +		desc -= txq->nb_tx_desc;
> > > > >  	/* go to next desc that has the RS bit */
> > > > > -	desc = ((desc + txq->tx_rs_thresh - 1) / txq->tx_rs_thresh) *
> > > > > -		txq->tx_rs_thresh;
> > > > > -	if (desc >= txq->nb_tx_desc) {
> > > > > +	desc = (desc  / txq->tx_rs_thresh + 1) *
> > > > > +			txq->tx_rs_thresh - 1;
> > > > > +	if (desc >= txq->nb_tx_desc)
> > > > >  		desc -= txq->nb_tx_desc;
> > > > > -		if (desc >= txq->nb_tx_desc)
> > > > > -			desc -= txq->nb_tx_desc;
> > > > > -	}
> > > > >
> > > > > +	desc = txq->sw_ring[desc].last_id;
> > > > >  	status = &txq->tx_ring[desc].wb.status;
> > > > >  	if (*status & rte_cpu_to_le_32(IXGBE_ADVTXD_STAT_DD))
> > > > >  		return RTE_ETH_TX_DESC_DONE;
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.7.5

  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-25  7:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-22  8:38 Wei Zhao
2018-06-22 13:47 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2018-06-25  1:57   ` Zhao1, Wei
2018-06-25  2:48     ` Zhang, Qi Z
2018-06-25  5:58       ` Zhao1, Wei
2018-06-25  6:49       ` Zhao1, Wei
2018-06-25  7:47         ` Zhang, Qi Z [this message]
2018-06-25  7:52           ` Zhao1, Wei
2018-06-25  7:55             ` Zhang, Qi Z
2018-06-25  8:41               ` Zhao1, Wei
2018-06-25 14:20                 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC] net/ixgbe: fix Tx descriptor status api Olivier Matz
2018-06-25 14:30                   ` Olivier Matz
2018-06-26  1:38                   ` Zhao1, Wei
2018-06-26  8:46                     ` Olivier Matz
2018-06-27  2:07                       ` Zhao1, Wei
2018-06-27 13:38                       ` Zhang, Qi Z
2018-06-26  1:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/ixgbe: fix Tx check descriptor status APIs error Wei Zhao

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=039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E706115323C83C@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=wei.zhao1@intel.com \
    --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).