From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BABA7E47 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:29:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [2001:470:8:a08:215:ff:fecc:4872] (helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4Vt0-0003mV-5v; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:29:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:28:59 -0500 From: Neil Horman To: "Zhang, Helin" Message-ID: <20141226142859.GA5567@localhost.localdomain> References: <1419405248-14158-1-git-send-email-helin.zhang@intel.com> <20141224145506.GA23653@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] i40e: workaround for XL710 performance X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:29:07 -0000 On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 12:20:11AM +0000, Zhang, Helin wrote: > Hi Neil > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:55 PM > > To: Zhang, Helin > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] i40e: workaround for XL710 performance > > > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 03:14:08PM +0800, Helin Zhang wrote: > > > on XL710, performance number is far from the expectation on recent > > > firmware versions, if promiscuous mode is disabled, or promiscuous > > > mode is enabled and port MAC address is equal to the packet > > > destination MAC address. The fix for this issue may not be integrated > > > in the following firmware version. So the workaround in software > > > driver is needed. It needs to modify the initial values of 2 internal > > > only registers which is the same 2 of 3 registers of it did for X710. > > > Note that the workaround can be removed when it is fixed in firmware > > > in the future. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Helin Zhang > > > --- > > > lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_ethdev.c | 35 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_ethdev.c > > > b/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_ethdev.c > > > index b47a3d2..3bb75d8 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_ethdev.c > > > +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_ethdev.c > > > @@ -5327,21 +5327,30 @@ i40e_debug_read_register(struct i40e_hw *hw, > > > uint32_t addr, uint64_t *val) > > > > > > /* > > > * On X710, performance number is far from the expectation on recent > > > firmware > > > - * versions. The fix for this issue may not be integrated in the > > > following > > > + * versions; on XL710, performance number is also far from the > > > + expectation on > > > + * recent firmware versions, if promiscuous mode is disabled, or > > > + promiscuous > > > + * mode is enabled and port MAC address is equal to the packet > > > + destination MAC > > > + * address. The fix for this issue may not be integrated in the > > > + following > > > * firmware version. So the workaround in software driver is needed. > > > It needs > > > - * to modify the initial values of 3 internal only registers. Note > > > that the > > > - * workaround can be removed when it is fixed in firmware in the future. > > > + * to modify the initial values of 3 internal only registers for > > > + X710, and the > > > + * same 2 internal registers for XL710. Note that the workaround can > > > + be removed > > > + * when it is fixed in firmware in the future. > > > > Wouldn't it be preferable to add a firmware version check to this code so that a > > single driver can handle both cards with old and 'fixed' firmware? That way > > nothing needs to be removed and all i40e cards will have a consistent behavior > > Neil > Yes, good idea! > The problem is that no firmware contains this fix till now, firmware guys even > cannot tell me which version will have this fix at this moment. > As it reads the registers first, and compares if it is what we wanted, and then > decides if a write is needed or not. With this, removing this piece of code is not > actually needed even a fix occur in the future, though the code will be redundant. > Very well, lets just make sure when it is fixed, the driver works with both patched and unpatched firmware Acked-by: Neil Horman > Thank you for the comments! > > Regards, > Helin > > > > > > */ > > > -static void > > > -i40e_configure_registers(struct i40e_hw *hw) -{ > > > -#define I40E_GL_SWR_PRI_JOIN_MAP_0 0x26CE00 > > > -#define I40E_GL_SWR_PRI_JOIN_MAP_2 0x26CE08 > > > -#define I40E_GL_SWR_PM_UP_THR 0x269FBC > > > + > > > +/* For both X710 and XL710 */ > > > #define I40E_GL_SWR_PRI_JOIN_MAP_0_VALUE 0x10000200 > > > +#define I40E_GL_SWR_PRI_JOIN_MAP_0 0x26CE00 > > > + > > > #define I40E_GL_SWR_PRI_JOIN_MAP_2_VALUE 0x011f0200 > > > +#define I40E_GL_SWR_PRI_JOIN_MAP_2 0x26CE08 > > > + > > > +/* For X710 only */ > > > #define I40E_GL_SWR_PM_UP_THR_VALUE 0x03030303 > > > +#define I40E_GL_SWR_PM_UP_THR 0x269FBC > > > > > > +static void > > > +i40e_configure_registers(struct i40e_hw *hw) { > > > static const struct { > > > uint32_t addr; > > > uint64_t val; > > > @@ -5354,11 +5363,11 @@ i40e_configure_registers(struct i40e_hw *hw) > > > uint32_t i; > > > int ret; > > > > > > - /* Below fix is for X710 only */ > > > - if (i40e_is_40G_device(hw->device_id)) > > > - return; > > > - > > > for (i = 0; i < RTE_DIM(reg_table); i++) { > > > + if ((i40e_is_40G_device(hw->device_id)) && > > > + (reg_table[i].addr == I40E_GL_SWR_PM_UP_THR)) > > > + continue; > > > + > > > ret = i40e_debug_read_register(hw, reg_table[i].addr, ®); > > > if (ret < 0) { > > > PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to read from 0x%"PRIx32, > > > -- > > > 1.9.3 > > > > > > >