On 01/09/15 07:54, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz at cloudius-systems.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 9, 2015 2:49 AM
>> To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev at dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
>>
>>
>> On 01/08/15 11:19, Vlad Zolotarov wrote:
>>> On 01/07/15 08:32, 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 at intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> changes in v5:
>>>> - Fix '<' issue, it should be '<=' to test rxq number;
>>>> - Extract a function to remove the embeded switch-case statement.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 50
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>>> b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index 95f2ceb..8363e26 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>>> @@ -503,6 +503,31 @@ rte_eth_dev_tx_queue_config(struct
>> rte_eth_dev
>>>> *dev, uint16_t nb_queues)
>>>> }
>>>> static int
>>>> +rte_eth_dev_check_vf_rss_rxq_num(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct rte_eth_dev *dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
>>>> + 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:
>>>> + 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;
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int
>>>> rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q,
>>>> uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>>>> const struct rte_eth_conf *dev_conf)
>>>> {
>>>> @@ -510,8 +535,7 @@ 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
>>>> +549,6 @@ 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 +557,25 @@ 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)
>>>> + if (rte_eth_dev_check_vf_rss_rxq_num(port_id,
>>>> nb_rx_q) != 0) {
>>>> + PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%d"
>>>> + " SRIOV active, invalid queue"
>>>> + " number for VMDQ RSS\n",
>>>> + port_id);
>>> Some nitpicking here: I'd add the allowed values descriptions to the
>>> error message. Something like: "invalid queue number for VMDQ RSS.
>>> Allowed values are 1, 2 or 4\n".
>>>
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> + break;
>>>> default: /* ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_RX_NONE */
>>>> /* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
>>>> dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode =
>>>> ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY; @@ -553,8 +595,6 @@
>>>> rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q,
>> uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>>>> default: /* ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_TX_NONE */
>>>> /* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
>>>> dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.mq_mode =
>> ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY;
>>>> - if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1)
>>>> - RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;
>>> I'm not sure u may just remove it. These lines originally belong to a
>>> different flow. Are u sure u can remove them like that? What if the
>>> mq_mode is ETH_MQ_RX_NONE and nb_q_per_pool has been initialized
>> to 4
>>> or 8 in ixgbe_pf_host_init()?
>> I misread the patch - these lines belong to the txmode.mq_mode switch case.
>> I think it's ok to remove these really strange lines here. And when I look
>> at it i
>> think for the similar reasons the similar lines should be removed in the Rx
>> case too: consider non-RSS case with MQ DCB Tx configuration.
>>
> I search code in this function, only one place has
> " if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1)
> RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;"
>
> The only place is default branch, which is for rx_none, or vmdq_only mode,
Here is a snippet of an rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode() from the current master:
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 */
PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8
" SRIOV active, "
"unsupported VMDQ mq_mode rx %u\n",
port_id, dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode);
return (-EINVAL);
default: /* ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_RX_NONE */
/* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode =
ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY;
*if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1)**
<---- This is one
** RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;*
break;
}
switch (dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode) {
case ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_DCB:
/* DCB VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement yet */
PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8
" SRIOV active, "
"unsupported VMDQ mq_mode tx %u\n",
port_id, dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode);
return (-EINVAL);
default: /* ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_TX_NONE */
/* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.mq_mode =
ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY;
if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1)
<------ This is two. This is what your patch is removing
RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;
break;
}
> We don't need remove this, as it should assign as 1 because it did use 1
> queue per pool.
And why is that? Just because RSS was not enabled? And what if a user
wants multiple Tx queues? Mode 1100b of MRQE for instance?
