Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode

["Ouyang, Changchun" <changchun.ouyang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz@cloudius-systems.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2015 5:46 PM
> To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
> 
> 
> On 01/04/15 10:58, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz@cloudius-systems.com]
> >> Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2015 4:45 PM
> >> To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
> >>
> >>
> >> On 01/04/15 09:18, Ouyang Changchun wrote:
> >>> Check mq mode for VMDq RSS, handle it correctly instead of returning
> >>> an error; Also remove the limitation of per pool queue number has
> >>> max value of 1, because the per pool queue number could be 2 or 4 if
> >>> it is VMDq RSS mode;
> >>>
> >>> The number of rxq specified in config will determine the mq mode for
> >> VMDq RSS.
> >>> Signed-off-by: Changchun Ouyang <changchun.ouyang@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 39
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>>    1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> >>> b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index 95f2ceb..59ff325 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> >>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> >>> @@ -510,8 +510,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id,
> >>> uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
> >>>
> >>>    	if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active != 0) {
> >>>    		/* check multi-queue mode */
> >>> -		if ((dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_RSS) ||
> >>> -		    (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB) ||
> >>> +		if ((dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB) ||
> >>>    		    (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB_RSS)
> >> ||
> >>>    		    (dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_TX_DCB)) {
> >>>    			/* SRIOV only works in VMDq enable mode */ @@ -
> >> 525,7 +524,6 @@
> >>> rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q,
> >> uint16_t nb_tx_q,
> >>>    		}
> >>>
> >>>    		switch (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode) {
> >>> -		case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS:
> >>>    		case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB:
> >>>    		case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB_RSS:
> >>>    			/* DCB/RSS VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement
> >> yet */ @@ -534,6
> >>> +532,39 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t
> >> nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
> >>>    					"unsupported VMDQ mq_mode
> >> rx %u\n",
> >>>    					port_id, dev_conf-
> >>> rxmode.mq_mode);
> >>>    			return (-EINVAL);
> >>> +		case ETH_MQ_RX_RSS:
> >>> +			PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8
> >>> +					" SRIOV active, "
> >>> +					"Rx mq mode is changed from:"
> >>> +					"mq_mode %u into VMDQ
> >> mq_mode %u\n",
> >>> +					port_id,
> >>> +					dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode,
> >>> +					dev->data-
> >>> dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode);
> >>> +		case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS:
> >>> +			dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode =
> >> ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS;
> >>> +			if (nb_rx_q <
> >> RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool) {
> 
> Missed that before: shouldn't it be "<=" here?

Agree with you, need <= here, I will fix it in v5

> 
> >>> +				switch (nb_rx_q) {
> >>> +				case 1:
> >>> +				case 2:
> >>> +					RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active =
> >>> +						ETH_64_POOLS;
> >>> +					break;
> >>> +				case 4:
> >>> +					RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active =
> >>> +						ETH_32_POOLS;
> >>> +					break;
> >>> +				default:
> >>> +					PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev
> >> port_id=%d"
> >>> +						" SRIOV active, "
> >>> +						"queue number invalid\n",
> >>> +						port_id);
> >>> +					return -EINVAL;
> >>> +				}
> >>> +				RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool =
> >> nb_rx_q;
> >>> +				RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).def_pool_q_idx =
> >>> +					dev->pci_dev->max_vfs * nb_rx_q;
> >>> +			}
> >> Don't u need to return an error in the "else" here?
> > Actually it has such a check after these code snippet, and it does
> > return error for the else case, Because it is original logic, I don't change any
> code around it, so it doesn't display here, you can check the codes.
> 
> I see. The flow is a bit confusing since the switch-case above will end up
> executing a "default" clause which will set
> RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool to 1 and then the error message
> in the check u are referring will be a bit confusing.

' set RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool to 1 ' is original code, which is for vmdq only case, or single queue case.
It is in default clause, and not in VMDQ_RSS clause.
I think my new code is ok here.

> >
> > Thanks
> > Changchun
> >
> >