From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>,
Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] app/testpmd: fix scatter offload configuration
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 18:28:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ad8394ff-7667-0071-7aeb-d366c3df4cf8@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0502MB4019284D1B328CF3C2A1D1B2D2DC0@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
On 7/30/2019 4:56 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> Hi Ferruh
>
> From: Ferruh Yigit
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:22 PM
>> To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Wenzhuo Lu
>> <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; stable@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] app/testpmd: fix scatter offload
>> configuration
>>
>> On 7/30/2019 2:17 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
>>> Hi Ferruh
>>>
>>> From: Ferruh Yigit
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 4:09 PM
>>>> To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Wenzhuo Lu
>>>> <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; stable@dpdk.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] app/testpmd: fix scatter offload
>>>> configuration
>>>>
>>>> On 7/29/2019 1:36 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
>>>>> When the mbuf data size cannot contain the maximum Rx packet length
>>>>> with the mbuf headroom, a packet should be scattered in more than
>>>>> one
>>>> mbuf.
>>>>>
>>>>> The application did not configure scatter offload in the above case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enable the Rx scatter offload in the above case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 33f9630fc23d ("app/testpmd: create mbuf based on max
>>>>> supported
>>>>> segments")
>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
>>>>
>>>> Deferring the patchset to next release, they were late anyway and not
>>>> actually fixing a defect, safer to defer than getting them in rc3.
>>>
>>> Yes this patch came late for RC3 but it is a fix.
>>>
>>> What are you concerns here?
>>> Why don't you think defect found?
>>
>> First patch changes the behavior, when mbuf size is larger than configured
>> size and user didn't provided the scatter offload, should test application
>> automatically enable it?
>
> No, only when the mbuf size is smaller than the max_rx_pkt_len with headroom.
> If scatter is not enabled in the above case, how can the PMD provide a packet with max_rx_pkt_len size?
>
> I think not enabling scatter in this case it is a user conflict in configuration and should raise an error in the PMD. Maybe even in ethdev layer.
>
>> It may or not, but this is the change of the behavior, I
>> think not a fix.
>>
>> And second patch adds more detail into the statistics, so I believe it is clear
>> that it is not a fix.
>
> Agree, this can wait.
>
>> The concern is getting changes very close to release, to balance between risk
>> and benefit of the feature. I don't see any reason why these changes can't
>> wait next release, so I don't see any reason to get the risk.
>
> When I changed the default max_rx_pkt_len and mbuf size in LRO testing I met this issue.
>
> By default scatter will not be enabled.
I think it is still arguable if scatter should be enabled by default, but isn't
there a way in testpmd to enable scatter explicitly? If so you have a way to
test LRO.
>
>
>>> What's about RC4?
>>
>> No, it is even worse, there will be only a little testing after rc4 and a little time
>> before release.
>
> So, I hope it will be integrated in RC3.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-30 17:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-29 12:36 Matan Azrad
2019-07-29 12:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] app/testpmd: add bits per second to statistics Matan Azrad
2019-07-30 11:41 ` Moti Haimovsky
2019-10-08 14:19 ` Yigit, Ferruh
2019-07-30 9:00 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] app/testpmd: fix scatter offload configuration Matan Azrad
2019-07-30 11:36 ` Moti Haimovsky
2019-07-30 13:09 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-07-30 13:17 ` Matan Azrad
2019-07-30 15:21 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-07-30 15:56 ` Matan Azrad
2019-07-30 17:28 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2019-07-30 18:34 ` Matan Azrad
2019-07-30 18:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2019-07-31 6:11 ` Matan Azrad
2019-10-08 14:18 ` Yigit, Ferruh
2019-10-22 7:06 ` Matan Azrad
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=ad8394ff-7667-0071-7aeb-d366c3df4cf8@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
--cc=matan@mellanox.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=wenzhuo.lu@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).