From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [148.163.129.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB311BDD5 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:52:18 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from webmail.solarflare.com (uk.solarflare.com [193.34.186.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1-us4.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id D6B3E80063; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.38.17] (91.220.146.112) by ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:52:10 +0000 To: Ferruh Yigit , =?UTF-8?Q?Ga=c3=abtan_Rivet?= CC: , Ivan Malov References: <1539344187-21481-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> <585c9670-07b6-abfa-027d-e4d07febb7d4@intel.com> From: Andrew Rybchenko Message-ID: <969cb7e3-6e1a-f5ac-ed1b-e4334f928b17@solarflare.com> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:52:07 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <585c9670-07b6-abfa-027d-e4d07febb7d4@intel.com> Content-Language: en-GB X-Originating-IP: [91.220.146.112] X-ClientProxiedBy: ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) To ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.5.1010-24304.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No-12.832800-8.000000-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: gzVbiXtWD9sOwH4pD14DsPHkpkyUphL9Kx5ICGp/WtF+YesuCgkiXPrD cSt1ghK0lcpQ/VyRbi0HR7EFRfPfHmhyvm9EcIhqOs0KXIfHD53RahuPwaQ1Wn1Dn+DKecbWLF9 jbxvK1+3OBZOqF12u2NiKyKaPQPWdXoZZdCbQG2FsG7r4Qh7N3PbtLKN7DjX45DJ1FS+XdBPtpc ZVtwIwCP1wnpZygX3moBqRj4uOT32v1fP3II840lRe8joruKtpoYvTAujgTsLczqimIuRbD33/2 TrR00zh09NQNrxIpFZbugLa37kpqvV+NbN27IZWnu1HSadECDWSiza26cvwNAqiCYa6w8tvQHfb Ke/4YJK0ueBNAC31Kif1ax0zxEV0p7xgsgU6EyPBtFDYGmaWKpkShYcLpGH9H06W6rwtvNXN2Wj bpqXgofa8+G6VxpdYgWg8WzvAdS0FrDF4OCzISZ06nVOMOuVpLZWWNVgH0Y07LF3pX3rdVLjxa5 EVBV1q4vM1YF6AJbZFi+KwZZttL7ew1twePJJBsjvNV98mpPM05P5zQozTbybChxPcnLPLfar9X wv9ZZ416md5zXe2QyuvPSBISxdTm+yGsgdADd/FrzqzLZv9BGhocZmgy2zr9gltTbCKK2M= X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-TMASE-Result: 10--12.832800-8.000000 X-TMASE-Version: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.5.1010-24304.003 X-MDID: 1545396737-qro3MXQ4PwTS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] net/failsafe: add default Tx mbuf fast free capability 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:52:19 -0000 Hi Ferruh, On 12/21/18 3:43 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 12/21/2018 12:28 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: >> On 12/21/18 3:12 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> On 10/12/2018 12:36 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: >>>> From: Ivan Malov >>>> >>>> This capability is reported when supported by the current emitting >>>> sub-device. Failsafe PMD itself does not excercise fast free logic. >>> I think overlay device capability reporting already discussed a few times, the >>> question is if an overlay devices should claim a feature when it depends on >>> underlay devices? >> The capability may be reported by the failsafe since it is transparent from >> fast free logic point of view. > Why it is transparent? If one of the underlying device doesn't support/claim > this feature, application can't use this feature with failsafe, isn't it? tx_offload_capa in failsafe is a mask to apply on sub-device capabilities. So, if the capability is not supported by any sub-device it will not be reported. As well if there is the capability bit in the mask, it will not be reported regardless sub-devices capabilities. The description for the patch above tries to explain it - it looks like not that successful. >>> Given that no ack/review given to the patch, I am updating it as rejected. >> Is it a new policy? I thought that it was vice versa before. > Hi Andrew, > > Yes policy is other-way around indeed, when there is no comment at all default > behavior is accept, but please take above paragraph as my comment to the patch. Got it. > And I was thinking it is a little controversial and there is no support to have > it, so lets don't get it. What do you think? I see you motivation. >>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko >>>> --- >>>> doc/guides/nics/features/failsafe.ini | 1 + >>>> drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c | 1 + >>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features/failsafe.ini b/doc/guides/nics/features/failsafe.ini >>>> index e3c4c08f2..b6f3dcee6 100644 >>>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features/failsafe.ini >>>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features/failsafe.ini >>>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ >>>> Link status = Y >>>> Link status event = Y >>>> Rx interrupt = Y >>>> +Fast mbuf free = Y >>>> Queue start/stop = Y >>>> Runtime Rx queue setup = Y >>>> Runtime Tx queue setup = Y >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c >>>> index 7f8bcd4c6..e3add404b 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c >>>> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ static struct rte_eth_dev_info default_infos = { >>>> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY, >>>> .tx_offload_capa = >>>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MULTI_SEGS | >>>> + DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MBUF_FAST_FREE | >>>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | >>>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | >>>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM | >>>>