From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496D3A0598; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 04:30:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DC341E99F; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 04:30:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga07-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.35]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E614E1E942 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 04:30:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from DGGEMS409-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8DC3BC258D779DBD65D9 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 10:30:45 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.67.101.251) by DGGEMS409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 10:30:37 +0800 To: Ferruh Yigit , , CC: , References: <1587121194-9098-1-git-send-email-oulijun@huawei.com> From: oulijun Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 10:30:37 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.67.101.251] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: configure rxd and txd number correctly 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 在 2020/4/18 8:42, Ferruh Yigit 写道: > On 4/17/2020 11:59 AM, Lijun Ou wrote: >> When users configure rxds and txds by used port config cmd based >> on testpmd application, it will not be able to configure rxd and >> txd according to the max capability range supported by the actual >> NIC hardware. Due testpmd defects, it can only configure a fixed >> range to 0 to 2048. >> The final result is that an incorrect printing prompt appears and >> cannot be applied using rxd && txd according to the actual >> capabilities supported by the device. >> In order to solve the above problems, we modify the testpmd. First >> by calling the rte_eth_dev_info_get api to obtain the max and min >> rx/tx capability supported by the hns3, and then use this range >> to compare with the actual value by users configured and make >> reasonable limitation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou >> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li >> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) > > <...> > >> @@ -1212,6 +1383,8 @@ init_config(void) >> lcoreid_t lc_id; >> uint8_t port_per_socket[RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES]; >> struct rte_gro_param gro_param; >> + uint16_t allowed_max_rxd; >> + uint16_t allowed_max_txd; >> uint32_t gso_types; >> uint16_t data_size; >> bool warning = 0; >> @@ -1239,6 +1412,9 @@ init_config(void) >> fwd_lcores[lc_id]->cpuid_idx = lc_id; >> } >> >> + allowed_max_rxd = RTE_TEST_RX_DESC_MAX; >> + allowed_max_txd = RTE_TEST_RX_DESC_MAX; >> + >> RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(pid) { >> port = &ports[pid]; >> /* Apply default TxRx configuration for all ports */ >> @@ -1299,6 +1475,13 @@ init_config(void) >> warning = 1; >> } >> } >> + >> + /* Get the maximum number of txd and rxd per queue. */ >> + if (port->dev_info.tx_desc_lim.nb_max > allowed_max_rxd) >> + allowed_max_txd = port->dev_info.tx_desc_lim.nb_max; >> + >> + if (port->dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_max > allowed_max_txd) >> + allowed_max_rxd = port->dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_max; >> } >> >> if (warning) >> @@ -1317,9 +1500,9 @@ init_config(void) >> if (param_total_num_mbufs) >> nb_mbuf_per_pool = param_total_num_mbufs; >> else { >> - nb_mbuf_per_pool = RTE_TEST_RX_DESC_MAX + >> + nb_mbuf_per_pool = allowed_max_rxd + >> (nb_lcores * mb_mempool_cache) + >> - RTE_TEST_TX_DESC_MAX + MAX_PKT_BURST; >> + allowed_max_txd + MAX_PKT_BURST; > > Overall patch looks good, but with above change, for the PMDs that doesn't > explicitly set 'dev_info.tx_desc_lim.nb_max' gets the default value > 'UINT16_MAX', like virtual PMDs, and this increases the memmory requirement a lot. > Hi，Ferruh Thanks. if some PMDs are not configured according to the specifications that are actually supported, does the PMDs driver require such a large mbuf by default. > What do you think to keep "port config all rxd|txd " the fix, but remove > above nb_mbuf change? Actually, I agree with your suggestion. But at the same time worry about whether mbuf is not enough, when rxd/txd is greater that RTE_TEST_TX_DESC_MAX Thanks Lijun Ou > > . >