From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D19A04F0; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:07:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 077931B13C; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:07:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B04D23D for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:07:22 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Dec 2019 10:07:21 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,300,1571727600"; d="scan'208";a="244937248" Received: from fyigit-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.96]) ([10.237.221.96]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2019 10:07:19 -0800 To: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com> References: <20180123135308.tr7nmuqsdeogm7bl@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> <VI1PR05MB31493CB772F5C787680B910FC3E30@VI1PR05MB3149.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> Autocrypt: addr=ferruh.yigit@intel.com; keydata= mQINBFXZCFABEADCujshBOAaqPZpwShdkzkyGpJ15lmxiSr3jVMqOtQS/sB3FYLT0/d3+bvy qbL9YnlbPyRvZfnP3pXiKwkRoR1RJwEo2BOf6hxdzTmLRtGtwWzI9MwrUPj6n/ldiD58VAGQ +iR1I/z9UBUN/ZMksElA2D7Jgg7vZ78iKwNnd+vLBD6I61kVrZ45Vjo3r+pPOByUBXOUlxp9 GWEKKIrJ4eogqkVNSixN16VYK7xR+5OUkBYUO+sE6etSxCr7BahMPKxH+XPlZZjKrxciaWQb +dElz3Ab4Opl+ZT/bK2huX+W+NJBEBVzjTkhjSTjcyRdxvS1gwWRuXqAml/sh+KQjPV1PPHF YK5LcqLkle+OKTCa82OvUb7cr+ALxATIZXQkgmn+zFT8UzSS3aiBBohg3BtbTIWy51jNlYdy ezUZ4UxKSsFuUTPt+JjHQBvF7WKbmNGS3fCid5Iag4tWOfZoqiCNzxApkVugltxoc6rG2TyX CmI2rP0mQ0GOsGXA3+3c1MCdQFzdIn/5tLBZyKy4F54UFo35eOX8/g7OaE+xrgY/4bZjpxC1 1pd66AAtKb3aNXpHvIfkVV6NYloo52H+FUE5ZDPNCGD0/btFGPWmWRmkPybzColTy7fmPaGz cBcEEqHK4T0aY4UJmE7Ylvg255Kz7s6wGZe6IR3N0cKNv++O7QARAQABtCVGZXJydWggWWln aXQgPGZlcnJ1aC55aWdpdEBpbnRlbC5jb20+iQJUBBMBCgA+AhsDAh4BAheABQsJCAcDBRUK CQgLBRYCAwEAFiEE0jZTh0IuwoTjmYHH+TPrQ98TYR8FAl1meboFCQlupOoACgkQ+TPrQ98T YR9ACBAAv2tomhyxY0Tp9Up7mNGLfEdBu/7joB/vIdqMRv63ojkwr9orQq5V16V/25+JEAD0 60cKodBDM6HdUvqLHatS8fooWRueSXHKYwJ3vxyB2tWDyZrLzLI1jxEvunGodoIzUOtum0Ce gPynnfQCelXBja0BwLXJMplM6TY1wXX22ap0ZViC0m714U5U4LQpzjabtFtjT8qOUR6L7hfy YQ72PBuktGb00UR/N5UrR6GqB0x4W41aZBHXfUQnvWIMmmCrRUJX36hOTYBzh+x86ULgg7H2 1499tA4o6rvE13FiGccplBNWCAIroAe/G11rdoN5NBgYVXu++38gTa/MBmIt6zRi6ch15oLA Ln2vHOdqhrgDuxjhMpG2bpNE36DG/V9WWyWdIRlz3NYPCDM/S3anbHlhjStXHOz1uHOnerXM 1jEjcsvmj1vSyYoQMyRcRJmBZLrekvgZeh7nJzbPHxtth8M7AoqiZ/o/BpYU+0xZ+J5/szWZ aYxxmIRu5ejFf+Wn9s5eXNHmyqxBidpCWvcbKYDBnkw2+Y9E5YTpL0mS0dCCOlrO7gca27ux ybtbj84aaW1g0CfIlUnOtHgMCmz6zPXThb+A8H8j3O6qmPoVqT3qnq3Uhy6GOoH8Fdu2Vchh TWiF5yo+pvUagQP6LpslffufSnu+RKAagkj7/RSuZV25Ag0EV9ZMvgEQAKc0Db17xNqtSwEv mfp4tkddwW9XA0tWWKtY4KUdd/jijYqc3fDD54ESYpV8QWj0xK4YM0dLxnDU2IYxjEshSB1T qAatVWz9WtBYvzalsyTqMKP3w34FciuL7orXP4AibPtrHuIXWQOBECcVZTTOdZYGAzaYzxiA ONzF9eTiwIqe9/oaOjTwTLnOarHt16QApTYQSnxDUQljeNvKYt1lZE/gAUUxNLWsYyTT+22/ vU0GDUahsJxs1+f1yEr+OGrFiEAmqrzpF0lCS3f/3HVTU6rS9cK3glVUeaTF4+1SK5ZNO35p iVQCwphmxa+dwTG/DvvHYCtgOZorTJ+OHfvCnSVjsM4kcXGjJPy3JZmUtyL9UxEbYlrffGPQ I3gLXIGD5AN5XdAXFCjjaID/KR1c9RHd7Oaw0Pdcq9UtMLgM1vdX8RlDuMGPrj5sQrRVbgYH fVU/TQCk1C9KhzOwg4Ap2T3tE1umY/DqrXQgsgH71PXFucVjOyHMYXXugLT8YQ0gcBPHy9mZ qw5mgOI5lCl6d4uCcUT0l/OEtPG/rA1lxz8ctdFBVOQOxCvwRG2QCgcJ/UTn5vlivul+cThi 6ERPvjqjblLncQtRg8izj2qgmwQkvfj+h7Ex88bI8iWtu5+I3K3LmNz/UxHBSWEmUnkg4fJl Rr7oItHsZ0ia6wWQ8lQnABEBAAGJAjwEGAEKACYCGwwWIQTSNlOHQi7ChOOZgcf5M+tD3xNh HwUCXWZ5wAUJB3FgggAKCRD5M+tD3xNhH2O+D/9OEz62YuJQLuIuOfL67eFTIB5/1+0j8Tsu o2psca1PUQ61SZJZOMl6VwNxpdvEaolVdrpnSxUF31kPEvR0Igy8HysQ11pj8AcgH0a9FrvU /8k2Roccd2ZIdpNLkirGFZR7LtRw41Kt1Jg+lafI0efkiHKMT/6D/P1EUp1RxOBNtWGV2hrd 0Yg9ds+VMphHHU69fDH02SwgpvXwG8Qm14Zi5WQ66R4CtTkHuYtA63sS17vMl8fDuTCtvfPF HzvdJLIhDYN3Mm1oMjKLlq4PUdYh68Fiwm+boJoBUFGuregJFlO3hM7uHBDhSEnXQr5mqpPM 6R/7Q5BjAxrwVBisH0yQGjsWlnysRWNfExAE2sRePSl0or9q19ddkRYltl6X4FDUXy2DTXa9 a+Fw4e1EvmcF3PjmTYs9IE3Vc64CRQXkhujcN4ZZh5lvOpU8WgyDxFq7bavFnSS6kx7Tk29/ wNJBp+cf9qsQxLbqhW5kfORuZGecus0TLcmpZEFKKjTJBK9gELRBB/zoN3j41hlEl7uTUXTI JQFLhpsFlEdKLujyvT/aCwP3XWT+B2uZDKrMAElF6ltpTxI53JYi22WO7NH7MR16Fhi4R6vh FHNBOkiAhUpoXRZXaCR6+X4qwA8CwHGqHRBfYFSU/Ulq1ZLR+S3hNj2mbnSx0lBs1eEqe2vh cA== Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com> Message-ID: <65f5f247-15e7-ac0a-183e-8a66193f426f@intel.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:07:19 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <VI1PR05MB31493CB772F5C787680B910FC3E30@VI1PR05MB3149.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] questions about new offload ethdev api 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://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On 1/23/2018 2:34 PM, Shahaf Shuler wrote: > Tuesday, January 23, 2018 3:53 PM, Olivier Matz: <...> >> >> 2/ meaning of rxmode.jumbo_frame, rxmode.enable_scatter, >> rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len >> >> While it's not related to the new API, it is probably a good opportunity >> to clarify the meaning of these flags. I'm not able to find a good >> documentation about them. >> >> Here is my understanding, the configuration only depends on: - the maximum >> rx frame length - the amount of data available in a mbuf (minus headroom) >> >> Flags to set in rxmode (example): >> +---------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+ | >> |mbuf_data_len=1K|mbuf_data_len=2K|mbuf_data_len=16K| >> +---------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+ >> |max_rx_len=1500|enable_scatter | | | >> +---------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+ >> |max_rx_len=9000|enable_scatter, |enable_scatter, |jumbo_frame | | >> |jumbo_frame |jumbo_frame | | >> +---------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+ >> >> If this table is correct, the flag jumbo_frame would be equivalent to check >> if max_rx_pkt_len is above a threshold. >> >> And enable_scatter could be deduced from the mbuf size of the given rxq >> (which is a bit harder but maybe doable). > > I glad you raised this subject. We had a lot of discussion on it internally > in Mellanox. > > I fully agree. All application needs is to specify the maximum packet size it > wants to receive. > > I think also the lack of documentation is causing PMDs to use those flags > wrongly. For example - some PMDs set the jumbo_frame flag internally without > it being set by the application. > > I would like to add one more item : MTU. What is the relation (if any) > between setting MTU and the max_rx_len ? I know MTU stands for Max Transmit > Unit, however at least in Linux it is the same for the Send and the receive. > > (Resurrecting the thread after two years, I will reply again with latest understanding.) Thanks Olivier for above summary and table, and unfortunately usage still not consistent between PMDs. According my understanding: 'max_rx_pkt_len' is user configuration value, to limit the size packet that is shared with host, but this doesn't limit the size of packet that NIC receives. Like if the mbuf size of the mempool used by a queue is 1024 bytes, we don't want packets bigger than buffer size, but if NIC supports it is possible receive 6000 bytes packet and split data into multiple buffers, and we can use multi segment packets to represent it. So what we need is NIC ability to limit the size of data to share to host and scattered Rx support (device + driver). But MTU limits the size of the packet that NIC receives. Assuming above are correct J, Using mbuf data size as 'max_rx_pkt_len' without asking from user is an option, but perhaps user has different reason to limit packet size, so I think better to keep as different config option. I think PMD itself enabling "jumbo frame" offload is not too bad, and acceptable, since providing a large MTU already implies it. But not sure about PMD enabling scattered Rx, application may want to force to receive single segment mbufs, for that case PMD enabling this config on its own looks like a problem. But user really needs this when a packet doesn't fit to the mbuf, so providing a MTU larger than 'max_rx_pkt_len' _may_ imply enabling scattered Rx, I assume this is the logic in some PMDs which looks acceptable. And PMD behavior should be according for mentioned configs: 1) Don't change user provided 'max_rx_pkt_len' value 2) If jumbo frame is not enabled, don't limit the size of packets to the host (I think this is based on assumption that mbuf size always will be > 1514) 3) When user request to set the MTU bigger than ETH_MAX, PMD enable jumbo frame support (if it is not enabled by user already and supported by HW). If HW doesn't support if of course it should fail. 4) When user request to set MTU bigger than 'max_rx_pkt_len' 4a) if "scattered Rx" is enabled, configure the MTU and limit packet size to host to 'max_rx_pkt_len' 4b) if "scattered Rx" is not enabled but HW supports it, enable "scattered Rx" by PMD, configure the MTU and limit packet size to host to 'max_rx_pkt_len' 4c) if "scattered Rx" is not enabled and not supported by HW, fail MTU set. 4d) if HW doesn't support to limit the packet size to host, but requested MTU bigger than 'max_rx_pkt_len' it should fail. Btw, I am aware of that some PMDs have a larger MTU by default and can't limit the packet size to host to 'max_rx_pkt_len' value, I don't know what to do in that case, fail in configure? Or at least be sure configured mempool's mbuf size is big enough? Thanks, ferruh