From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CBDAA00BE; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:50:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7FF1DE03; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:50:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com (mail-wm1-f66.google.com [209.85.128.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34131DDE7 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:50:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id a6so1584063wmm.0 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:50:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ANKLSU0d1HvslhRrVXVPspu6BsUHdB9VfjnyVve+CL8=; b=JUZbPcEyNwz/Kaagf1jC59T+mBriRUIXs4+UMfe6HiIINSA182M842kOa4gK1M2dgM lKyIaRoNNdlEjmebpOi9kOZTqmzG/bDhvoAtjliJ6Mo6MZ+b1GO91tusUNiCH9I6pGRQ 9tRczsGzTUO4Rlg9xpyy8w2kZ2wWCrinbuP/iEaLqSQa8qCLZ/fvzww+ejVnc33sXuFY s9APgK1mSEXqNFRQRiUZVbtFXZsXnmUtPO5EAZmp05B3iPe86UUqTCQTXl/rEa+CqkGg oyUXzGE4IF4PSsG61PNgsp4TYRX6GSV70Yjl2pp0uInIL8O6zOkGDfqB8GFvStgcb5z8 +XwA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ANKLSU0d1HvslhRrVXVPspu6BsUHdB9VfjnyVve+CL8=; b=KzJMiplgfNV3//oI80B1yaaG8CkA1oGyBeRWb5qzSR9j3KuJzWrRgRgPmCStrE+BOn z4QPI4Gf94yI3EYAAfw3NodRF7C78rmPt3dGXQjvTPc7NuDflwfqTR46XgFMC9HUuw4r oMVpwYn6MZvDD/F2QGPj+FpaOyXDE/euUomBdMh9Afr30iky12oUseHdauA59cFkXEwH t7hLpDxNCrg02tM6Xbid5oOvC6BsZkBUli79ibENlOD1zTUkJvoz3Fejb/Dib7M57dTA ZSXhqg7ftWFYQczQ41qpIlKonGVFUP9cI3GSAAZf/YTtve1b+j0wYHcSXlsZFPuDGlA5 x1uA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531doOx36aGXf1TqyBF/QiFfBOgvtaNsQUJpcWcj+/Yqv6WaVmgr wdIN7cd9e0I7c9Pcp10xS7mqQw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz91AxIxi2mf4V4TRXsOwQNZ6HPS1KbUMQzxigrYeWdgT/VNtI3OZS4ptUl5UIRdGumolSfiQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7313:: with SMTP id d19mr3568684wmb.147.1594122647342; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com (2a01cb0c0005a600345636f7e65ed1a0.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb0c:5:a600:3456:36f7:e65e:d1a0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u186sm805018wmu.10.2020.07.07.04.50.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:50:46 +0200 From: Olivier Matz To: Viacheslav Ovsiienko Cc: dev@dpdk.org, matan@mellanox.com, rasland@mellanox.com, bernard.iremonger@intel.com, thomas@mellanox.net Message-ID: <20200707115046.GI5869@platinum> References: <1591771085-24959-1-git-send-email-viacheslavo@mellanox.com> <1593617787-3252-1-git-send-email-viacheslavo@mellanox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1593617787-3252-1-git-send-email-viacheslavo@mellanox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] mbuf: introduce accurate packet Tx scheduling X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Slava, Few question/comments below. On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 03:36:26PM +0000, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote: > There is the requirement on some networks for precise traffic timing > management. The ability to send (and, generally speaking, receive) > the packets at the very precisely specified moment of time provides > the opportunity to support the connections with Time Division > Multiplexing using the contemporary general purpose NIC without involving > an auxiliary hardware. For example, the supporting of O-RAN Fronthaul > interface is one of the promising features for potentially usage of the > precise time management for the egress packets. > > The main objective of this RFC is to specify the way how applications > can provide the moment of time at what the packet transmission must be > started and to describe in preliminary the supporting this feature from > mlx5 PMD side. > > The new dynamic timestamp field is proposed, it provides some timing > information, the units and time references (initial phase) are not > explicitly defined but are maintained always the same for a given port. > Some devices allow to query rte_eth_read_clock() that will return > the current device timestamp. The dynamic timestamp flag tells whether > the field contains actual timestamp value. For the packets being sent > this value can be used by PMD to schedule packet sending. > > After PKT_RX_TIMESTAMP flag and fixed timestamp field deprecation > and obsoleting, these dynamic flag and field will be used to manage > the timestamps on receiving datapath as well. Do you mean the same flag will be used for both Rx and Tx? I wonder if it's a good idea: if you enable the timestamp on Rx, the packets will be flagged and it will impact Tx, except if the application explicitly resets the flag in all mbufs. Wouldn't it be safer to have an Rx flag and a Tx flag? > When PMD sees the "rte_dynfield_timestamp" set on the packet being sent > it tries to synchronize the time of packet appearing on the wire with > the specified packet timestamp. It the specified one is in the past it > should be ignored, if one is in the distant future it should be capped > with some reasonable value (in range of seconds). These specific cases > ("too late" and "distant future") can be optionally reported via > device xstats to assist applications to detect the time-related > problems. I think what to do with packets to be send in the "past" could be configurable through an ethdev API in the future (drop or send). > There is no any packet reordering according timestamps is supposed, > neither within packet burst, nor between packets, it is an entirely > application responsibility to generate packets and its timestamps > in desired order. The timestamps can be put only in the first packet > in the burst providing the entire burst scheduling. This constraint makes sense. At first glance, it looks it is imposed by a PMD or hw limitation, but thinking more about it, I think it is the correct behavior to have. Packets are ordered within a PMD queue, and the ability to set the timestamp for one packet to delay the subsequent ones looks useful. Should this behavior be documented somewhere? Maybe in the API comment documenting the dynamic flag? > PMD reports the ability to synchronize packet sending on timestamp > with new offload flag: > > This is palliative and is going to be replaced with new eth_dev API > about reporting/managing the supported dynamic flags and its related > features. This API would break ABI compatibility and can't be introduced > at the moment, so is postponed to 20.11. > > For testing purposes it is proposed to update testpmd "txonly" > forwarding mode routine. With this update testpmd application generates > the packets and sets the dynamic timestamps according to specified time > pattern if it sees the "rte_dynfield_timestamp" is registered. > > The new testpmd command is proposed to configure sending pattern: > > set tx_times , > > - the delay between the packets within the burst > specified in the device clock units. The number > of packets in the burst is defined by txburst parameter > > - the delay between the bursts in the device clock units > > As the result the bursts of packet will be transmitted with specific > delays between the packets within the burst and specific delay between > the bursts. The rte_eth_get_clock is supposed to be engaged to get the > current device clock value and provide the reference for the timestamps. > > Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko > --- > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 1 + > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 4 ++++ > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c > index 8e10a6f..02157d5 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c > @@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ struct rte_eth_xstats_name_off { > RTE_TX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR(UDP_TNL_TSO), > RTE_TX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR(IP_TNL_TSO), > RTE_TX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR(OUTER_UDP_CKSUM), > + RTE_TX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR(SEND_ON_TIMESTAMP), > }; > > #undef RTE_TX_OFFLOAD_BIT2STR > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > index a49242b..6f6454c 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > @@ -1178,6 +1178,10 @@ struct rte_eth_conf { > /** Device supports outer UDP checksum */ > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM 0x00100000 > > +/** Device supports send on timestamp */ > +#define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_SEND_ON_TIMESTAMP 0x00200000 > + > + > #define RTE_ETH_DEV_CAPA_RUNTIME_RX_QUEUE_SETUP 0x00000001 > /**< Device supports Rx queue setup after device started*/ > #define RTE_ETH_DEV_CAPA_RUNTIME_TX_QUEUE_SETUP 0x00000002 > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.h > index 96c3631..fb5477c 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.h > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.h > @@ -250,4 +250,20 @@ int rte_mbuf_dynflag_lookup(const char *name, > #define RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD_METADATA_NAME "rte_flow_dynfield_metadata" > #define RTE_MBUF_DYNFLAG_METADATA_NAME "rte_flow_dynflag_metadata" > > +/* > + * The timestamp dynamic field provides some timing information, the > + * units and time references (initial phase) are not explicitly defined > + * but are maintained always the same for a given port. Some devices allow > + * to query rte_eth_read_clock() that will return the current device > + * timestamp. The dynamic timestamp flag tells whether the field contains > + * actual timestamp value. For the packets being sent this value can be > + * used by PMD to schedule packet sending. > + * > + * After PKT_RX_TIMESTAMP flag and fixed timestamp field deprecation > + * and obsoleting, these dynamic flag and field will be used to manage > + * the timestamps on receiving datapath as well. > + */ > +#define RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD_TIMESTAMP_NAME "rte_dynfield_timestamp" > +#define RTE_MBUF_DYNFLAG_TIMESTAMP_NAME "rte_dynflag_timestamp" > + I realize that's not the case for rte_flow_dynfield_metadata, but I think it would be good to have a doxygen-like comment. Regards, Olivier