From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Soumyadeep Hore <soumyadeep.hore@intel.com>
Cc: <aman.deep.singh@intel.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>,
<shaiq.wani@intel.com>, <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net/ice: fix incorrect reading of PHY timestamp
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 09:55:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zxtc_OSUVP4fjEW5@bricha3-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241025073211.681268-1-soumyadeep.hore@intel.com>
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 07:32:11AM +0000, Soumyadeep Hore wrote:
> In ICE PMD, previously the ready bitmap checking before reading
> PHY timestamp was not present. This caused incorrect Tx
> timestamping.
>
> The ready bitmap checking is enabled and PHY timestamp is read once
> the ready bitmap gives positive value.
>
> Fixes: 881169950d80 ("net/ice/base: implement initial PTP support for E830")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Soumyadeep Hore <soumyadeep.hore@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c
> index 7b1bd163a2..e0db47cf28 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c
> @@ -6517,12 +6517,28 @@ ice_timesync_read_tx_timestamp(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> struct ice_adapter *ad =
> ICE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_ADAPTER(dev->data->dev_private);
> uint8_t lport;
> - uint64_t ts_ns, ns, tstamp;
> + uint64_t ts_ns, ns, tstamp, tstamp_ready = 0;
> + uint64_t start_time, curr_time;
> const uint64_t mask = 0xFFFFFFFF;
> int ret;
>
> lport = hw->port_info->lport;
>
> + start_time = rte_get_timer_cycles() / (rte_get_timer_hz() / 1000);
Why all the division by 1000?
> +
> + while (!(tstamp_ready & BIT_ULL(0))) {
> + ret = ice_get_phy_tx_tstamp_ready(hw, lport, &tstamp_ready);
> + if (ret) {
> + PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to get phy ready for timestamp");
> + return -1;
> + }
> + curr_time = rte_get_timer_cycles() / (rte_get_timer_hz() / 1000);
> + if (curr_time - start_time > 1000) {
Is 1 second not a very long time to wait for this? Surely even milliseconds
is a very long delay in this case.
In terms of the logic, rather than constantly comparing vs the start time
and doing lots of division, I think it would be simpler to just set a max
end-time. For example, to keep the current 1s limit:
uint64_t end_time = rte_get_timer_cycles?() + rte_get_timer_hz()
...
if (rte_get_timer_cycles() > end_time) {
...
}
> + PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Timeout to get phy ready for timestamp");
> + return -1;
> + }
> + }
> +
> ret = ice_read_phy_tstamp(hw, lport, 0, &tstamp);
> if (ret) {
> PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to read phy timestamp");
> --
> 2.43.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-25 8:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-11 13:00 [PATCH v1] " Soumyadeep Hore
2024-10-25 5:14 ` [PATCH v2] " Soumyadeep Hore
2024-10-25 7:32 ` [PATCH v3] " Soumyadeep Hore
2024-10-25 8:55 ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2024-10-25 7:50 ` [PATCH v4] " Soumyadeep Hore
2024-10-25 9:02 ` Bruce Richardson
2024-10-30 2:16 [PATCH v2] " Soumyadeep Hore
2024-11-04 10:31 ` [PATCH v3] " Soumyadeep Hore
2024-11-04 12:16 ` Bruce Richardson
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=Zxtc_OSUVP4fjEW5@bricha3-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=aman.deep.singh@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=shaiq.wani@intel.com \
--cc=soumyadeep.hore@intel.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
/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).