From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D4E7CEC
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 8 May 2018 12:58:09 +0200 (CEST)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29])
by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
08 May 2018 03:58:08 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,378,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="47609305"
Received: from fyigit-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.77])
([10.237.221.77])
by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 May 2018 03:58:06 -0700
To: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>, Wei Dai <wei.dai@intel.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
References: <1525311040-26694-1-git-send-email-wei.dai@intel.com>
<1525442529-12723-1-git-send-email-wei.dai@intel.com>
<DB7PR05MB4426E99456477E1B7D1D6A64C3850@DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=ferruh.yigit@intel.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=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Message-ID: <ad95d2d0-6abe-3561-e11a-acc8c99fd443@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 11:58:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR05MB4426E99456477E1B7D1D6A64C3850@DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads
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://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 10:58:10 -0000
On 5/5/2018 7:59 PM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> Hi Ferruh, Dai,
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads
>>
>> This patch check if a input requested offloading is valid or not.
>> Any reuqested offloading must be supported in the device capabilities.
>> Any offloading is disabled by default if it is not set in the parameter
>> dev_conf->[rt]xmode.offloads to rte_eth_dev_configure( ) and [rt]x_conf-
>>> offloads to rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ).
>> From application, a pure per-port offloading can't be enabled on any queue if
>> it hasn't been enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> If any offloading is enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ) by application, it is
>> enabled on all queues no matter whether it is per-queue or per-port type
>> and no matter whether it is set or cleared in [rt]x_conf->offloads to
>> rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ).
>> The underlying PMD must be aware that the requested offloadings to PMD
>> specific queue_setup( ) function only carries those offloadings only enabled
>> for the queue but not enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ) and they are
>> certain per-queue type.
>>
>> This patch can make above such checking in a common way in rte_ethdev
>> layer to avoid same checking in underlying PMD.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Dai <wei.dai@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>>
>> ---
>> v7:
>> Give the maximum freedom for upper application, only minimal checking is
>> performed in ethdev layer.
>> Only requested specific pure per-queue offloadings are input to underlying
>> PMD.
>>
>> v6:
>> No need enable an offload in queue_setup( ) if it has already been enabled
>> in dev_configure( )
>>
>> v5:
>> keep offload settings sent to PMD same as those from application
>>
>> v4:
>> fix a wrong description in git log message.
>>
>> v3:
>> rework according to dicision of offloading API in community
>>
>> v2:
>> add offloads checking in rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> check if a requested offloading is supported.
>> ---
>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 150
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 150 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> index e560524..0ad05eb 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> @@ -1139,6 +1139,28 @@ rte_eth_dev_configure(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t
>> nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>> ETHER_MAX_LEN;
>> }
>>
>> + /* Any requested offloading must be within its device capabilities */
>> + if ((local_conf.rxmode.offloads & dev_info.rx_offload_capa) !=
>> + local_conf.rxmode.offloads) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%d requested Rx
>> offloads "
>> + "0x%" PRIx64 " doesn't match Rx offloads "
>> + "capabilities 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + local_conf.rxmode.offloads,
>> + dev_info.rx_offload_capa);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> While I am OK with such behavior, we should be more careful not to get into the same issue as in [1].
> There are PMD which don't report the capabilities correctly however do expect to have the offload configured.
>
> All I am saying it is worth a check and cautious decision if it is right to include this one w/o prior application notice and at such late RC of the release.
This is valid concern. I think this is better than [1] which was less clear than
this check but yes still a concern.
>
>> + }
>> + if ((local_conf.txmode.offloads & dev_info.tx_offload_capa) !=
>> + local_conf.txmode.offloads) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%d requested Tx
>> offloads "
>> + "0x%" PRIx64 " doesn't match Tx offloads "
>> + "capabilities 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + local_conf.txmode.offloads,
>> + dev_info.tx_offload_capa);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> /* Check that device supports requested rss hash functions. */
>> if ((dev_info.flow_type_rss_offloads |
>> dev_conf->rx_adv_conf.rss_conf.rss_hf) != @@ -1414,6 +1436,8
>> @@ rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t rx_queue_id,
>> struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
>> struct rte_eth_rxconf local_conf;
>> void **rxq;
>> + uint64_t pure_port_offload_capa;
>> + uint64_t only_enabled_for_queue;
>>
>> RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -EINVAL);
>>
>> @@ -1504,6 +1528,68 @@ rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id,
>> uint16_t rx_queue_id,
>> &local_conf.offloads);
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * The requested offloadings by application for this queue
>> + * can be per-queue type or per-port type. and
>> + * they must be within the device offloading capabilities.
>> + */
>> + if ((local_conf.offloads & dev_info.rx_offload_capa) !=
>> + local_conf.offloads) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Ethdev port_id=%d
>> rx_queue_id=%d "
>> + "Requested offload 0x%" PRIx64 "doesn't "
>> + "match per-queue capability 0x%" PRIx64
>> + " in %s\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + rx_queue_id,
>> + local_conf.offloads,
>> + dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa,
>> + __func__);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * A pure per-port offloading can't be enabled for any queue
>> + * if it hasn't been enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> + *
>> + * Following pure_port_offload_capa is the capabilities which
>> + * can't be enabled on some queue while disabled on other queue.
>> + * pure_port_offload_capa must be enabled or disabled on all
>> + * queues at same time.
>> + *
>> + * Following only_enabled_for_queue is the offloadings which
>> + * are enabled for this queue but hasn't been enabled in
>> + * rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> + */
>> + pure_port_offload_capa = dev_info.rx_offload_capa ^
>> + dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa;
>> + only_enabled_for_queue = (local_conf.offloads ^
>> + dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads) &
>> local_conf.offloads;
>
> It looks like above logic could be a lot simpler.
>
> How about:
> local_conf.offloads &= ~dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads; // keep only the added offloads on top of the port ones
> if ((local_conf.offloads & dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa) !=
> local_conf.offloads) { //check if added offloads are part of the queue offload capa
> ERROR...
+1
>
>
>> + if (only_enabled_for_queue & pure_port_offload_capa) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Ethdev port_id=%d
>> rx_queue_id=%d, only "
>> + "enabled offload 0x%" PRIx64 "for this "
>> + "queue haven't been enabled in "
>> + "dev_configure( ), they are within "
>> + "pure per-port capabilities 0x%" PRIx64
>
> Need to re-work this error message. The user doesn't know what are "pure per-port capabilities"
+1
>
>> + " in %s\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + rx_queue_id,
>> + only_enabled_for_queue,
>> + pure_port_offload_capa,
>> + __func__);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If an offloading has already been enabled in
>> + * rte_eth_dev_configure(), it has been enabled on all queues,
>> + * so there is no need to enable it in this queue again.
>> + * The local_conf.offloads input to underlying PMD only carries
>> + * those offloadings which are only enabled on this queue and
>> + * not enabled on all queues.
>> + * The underlying PMD must be aware of this point.
>> + */
>> + local_conf.offloads &= ~dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads;
>> +
>> ret = (*dev->dev_ops->rx_queue_setup)(dev, rx_queue_id,
>> nb_rx_desc,
>> socket_id, &local_conf, mp);
>> if (!ret) {
>> @@ -1549,6 +1635,8 @@ rte_eth_tx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id,
>> uint16_t tx_queue_id,
>> struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
>> struct rte_eth_txconf local_conf;
>> void **txq;
>> + uint64_t pure_port_offload_capa;
>> + uint64_t only_enabled_for_queue;
>>
>> RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -EINVAL);
>>
>> @@ -1612,6 +1700,68 @@ rte_eth_tx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id,
>> uint16_t tx_queue_id,
>> &local_conf.offloads);
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * The requested offloadings by application for this queue
>> + * can be per-queue type or per-port type. and
>> + * they must be within the device offloading capabilities.
>> + */
>> + if ((local_conf.offloads & dev_info.tx_offload_capa) !=
>> + local_conf.offloads) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Ethdev port_id=%d
>> tx_queue_id=%d "
>> + "Requested offload 0x%" PRIx64 "doesn't "
>> + "match per-queue capability 0x%" PRIx64
>> + " in %s\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + tx_queue_id,
>> + local_conf.offloads,
>> + dev_info.tx_queue_offload_capa,
>> + __func__);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * A pure per-port offloading can't be enabled for any queue
>> + * if it hasn't been enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> + *
>> + * Following pure_port_offload_capa is the capabilities which
>> + * can't be enabled on some queue while disabled on other queue.
>> + * pure_port_offload_capa must be enabled or disabled on all
>> + * queues at same time.
>> + *
>> + * Following only_enabled_for_queue is the offloadings which
>> + * are enabled for this queue but hasn't been enabled in
>> + * rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> + */
>> + pure_port_offload_capa = dev_info.tx_offload_capa ^
>> + dev_info.tx_queue_offload_capa;
>> + only_enabled_for_queue = (local_conf.offloads ^
>> + dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads) &
>> local_conf.offloads;
>
> Same comments as in the Rx part.
>
>> + if (only_enabled_for_queue & pure_port_offload_capa) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Ethdev port_id=%d
>> tx_queue_id=%d, only "
>> + "enabled offload 0x%" PRIx64 "for this "
>> + "queue haven't been enabled in "
>> + "dev_configure( ), they are within "
>> + "pure per-port capabilities 0x%" PRIx64
>> + " in %s\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + tx_queue_id,
>> + only_enabled_for_queue,
>> + pure_port_offload_capa,
>> + __func__);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If an offloading has already been enabled in
>> + * rte_eth_dev_configure(), it has been enabled on all queues,
>> + * so there is no need to enable it in this queue again.
>> + * The local_conf.offloads input to underlying PMD only carries
>> + * those offloadings which are only enabled on this queue and
>> + * not enabled on all queues.
>> + * The underlying PMD must be aware of this point.
>> + */
>> + local_conf.offloads &= ~dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads;
>> +
>> return eth_err(port_id, (*dev->dev_ops->tx_queue_setup)(dev,
>> tx_queue_id, nb_tx_desc, socket_id, &local_conf)); }
>> --
>> 2.7.5
>
>
> As for Ferruh's comment
>>
>> PMDs needs to be updated for:
>> 1- Remove existing offload verify checks
>> 2- Update offload configure logic based on new values
>>
>> (1) can be part of this patch. But PMD maintainers should send update
>> for (2) if a change required.
>>
>> cc'ed Shahaf, specially for (2) one.
>
> I think PMD maintainers can help with that. If it will be integrated enough time before the release Mellanox PMDs can be converted by us.
>
Thanks.
As far as I can see in v8 Wei is adding some code [2] to keep same input for the
PMD to not break the logic in PMD. But later PMD can be updated for better
support of new offload input to the PMD.
[2]
+ uint64_t offloads = conf->offloads |
+ dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads;
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/38645/
>
>