DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW	ring descriptor fields
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:43:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54FD956A.1060404@cloudius-systems.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213F4B04@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>



On 03/09/15 12:29, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Vlad,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vlad Zolotarov
>> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:13 AM
>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring descriptor
>> fields
>>
>> Fixed the above in ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs() and in ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com>
>> ---
>>   lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 13 +++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>> index 9ecf3e5..b033e04 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>> @@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
>>   	struct igb_rx_entry *rxep;
>>   	struct rte_mbuf *mb;
>>   	uint16_t alloc_idx;
>> -	uint64_t dma_addr;
>> +	__le64 dma_addr;
> Wonder Why you changed from uint64_t to __le64 here?
> Effectively __le64 is the same a uint64_t,

I'm afraid the above it's not completely correct. See below.

> and I think it is better to use always the same type across all PMD code for consistency.

Pls., note that "dma_addr" is only used (see below)...

> Konstantin
>
>
>>   	int diag, i;
>>
>>   	/* allocate buffers in bulk directly into the S/W ring */
>> @@ -1051,7 +1051,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
>>   		mb->port = rxq->port_id;
>>
>>   		/* populate the descriptors */
>> -		dma_addr = (uint64_t)mb->buf_physaddr + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
>> +		dma_addr = rte_cpu_to_le_64(RTE_MBUF_DATA_DMA_ADDR_DEFAULT(mb));
>>   		rxdp[i].read.hdr_addr = dma_addr;
>>   		rxdp[i].read.pkt_addr = dma_addr;

here. ;) And the type of both hdr_addr and pkt_addr is __le64.
I don't exactly understand what do u mean by "use the same type across 
all PMD code for consistency" - there are a lot of types used in the PMD 
code and __le64 is one of them... ;)

Now more seriously, let's recall what is the semantics of the __leXX 
types - they represent the integer in the "little endian" format. Here, 
NIC expects the physical address in a little endian format, thus the 
descriptor is defined the way it is defined - using __le64. The same 
relates to dma_addr local variable in this patch - it contains the 
physical (more correctly "DMA-able") address of the Rx buffer in the 
form NIC expects it to be written in the descriptor.

So, why to use __leXX anyway? - Debugging the (invalid) endianess is a 
real headache. Therefore there are a few static code analysis tools like 
"sparse" that allow to detect such inconsistencies (see here 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse) and __leXX is a helper to allow 
tools like sparse to detect such problems.

In addition after spending some time writing patches for Linux netdev 
list u develop a strong habit for such stuff - Dave and others are very 
strict about such things... ;)

So, is it the same as uint64_t? I guess now it's clear why it is now... ;)

>>   	}
>> @@ -1559,13 +1559,14 @@ ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
>>   		first_seg->ol_flags = pkt_flags;
>>
>>   		if (likely(pkt_flags & PKT_RX_RSS_HASH))
>> -			first_seg->hash.rss = rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss;
>> +			first_seg->hash.rss =
>> +				    rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss);
>>   		else if (pkt_flags & PKT_RX_FDIR) {
>>   			first_seg->hash.fdir.hash =
>> -				(uint16_t)((rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
>> -					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK);
>> +			    rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
>> +					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK;
>>   			first_seg->hash.fdir.id =
>> -				rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id;
>> +			  rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id);
>>   		}
>>
>>   		/* Prefetch data of first segment, if configured to do so. */
>> --
>> 2.1.0

  reply	other threads:[~2015-03-09 12:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-09 10:12 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/3]: bug fixes in the ixgbe PF PMD Rx flow Vlad Zolotarov
2015-03-09 10:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring descriptor fields Vlad Zolotarov
2015-03-09 10:29   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-03-09 12:43     ` Vlad Zolotarov [this message]
2015-03-09 16:35       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-03-09 18:51         ` Vlad Zolotarov
2015-03-09 19:27           ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-03-09 10:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/3] ixgbe: Bug fix: Properly configure Rx CRC stripping for x540 devices Vlad Zolotarov
2015-03-09 10:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/3] ixgbe: Unify the rx_pkt_bulk callback initialization Vlad Zolotarov
2015-03-09 13:39   ` Mcnamara, John
2015-03-09 16:30     ` Vlad Zolotarov

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=54FD956A.1060404@cloudius-systems.com \
    --to=vladz@cloudius-systems.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@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).