On 4/25/2018 5:17 PM, Ophir Munk wrote: > Hi Ferruh, > Patch https://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/38957/ was submitted.
Thanks Ophir, Since your patch is out, I am marking this one as rejected. > Can you please review it? > Please add Suggest-by with your name. > > Regards, > Ophir > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ophir Munk >> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 3:21 PM >> To: 'Ferruh Yigit' <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; 'Pascal Mazon' >> <pascal.ma...@6wind.com> >> Cc: 'dev@dpdk.org' <dev@dpdk.org>; Mordechay Haimovsky >> <mo...@mellanox.com>; Olga Shern <ol...@mellanox.com>; Thomas >> Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Raslan Darawsheh >> <rasl...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] net/tap: remove queue specific offload support >> >> Hi Ferruh, >> I started working on a patch. >> No need for your test example. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ophir Munk >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 3:00 PM >>> To: 'Ferruh Yigit' <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Pascal Mazon >>> <pascal.ma...@6wind.com> >>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Mordechay Haimovsky <mo...@mellanox.com>; Olga >> Shern >>> <ol...@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; >> Raslan >>> Darawsheh <rasl...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler >> <shah...@mellanox.com> >>> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] net/tap: remove queue specific offload support >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 12:48 PM >>>> To: Ophir Munk <ophi...@mellanox.com>; Pascal Mazon >>>> <pascal.ma...@6wind.com> >>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Mordechay Haimovsky <mo...@mellanox.com>; Olga >>> Shern >>>> <ol...@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; >>> Raslan >>>> Darawsheh <rasl...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler >>> <shah...@mellanox.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net/tap: remove queue specific offload >>>> support >>>> >>>> On 4/25/2018 10:18 AM, Ophir Munk wrote: >>>>> Hi Ferruh, >>>>> >>>>> I should have mentioned earlier that TAP does support queue >>>>> specific >>>> capabilities. >>>>> Please look in tap_queue_setup() and note that each TAP queue is >>>>> created >>>> with a distinct file descriptor (fd). >>>>> Then supporting an offload capability is just implementing it in SW (e.g. >>>> calculating IP checksum). >>>>> >>>>> If the main assumption of this patch was that TAP does not support >>>>> queue >>>> specific offloads - then please consider this patch again. >>>> >>>> Yes that was the initial question, is tap supports queue specific >>>> offloads or not. Thanks for the answer. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand there is no port specific capability supported by TAP. >>>> >>>> If so verify functions are wrong, that was the error I got. >>> >>> Can you please specify the test you did what error you got? >>> If I fix something I want to verify what I am fixing. >>> >>>> It seems copy/paste of mlx one but the port_supp_offloads has >>>> different meaning there. >>>> >>>>> However, in order to support legacy applications, port >>>>> capabilities are >>>> usually reported as the OR operation between queue & port capabilities. >>>>> TAP currently clones the queue capabilities to port capabilities. >>>>> We could >>>> optimize this cloning by always return queue capabilities when >>>> queried about queues or ports. In this case - >>>> tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() and >>>> tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa() could be removed. >>>> >>>> Instead of removing the functions I think you can keep them but >>>> return correct values, in this case return empty, this will make the >>>> exiting validation functions correct. >>>> >>>> Can you send a fix for that? >>>> If no fix sent, I suggest going with this patch to remove queue >>>> level offload support until it is fixed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please find more comments inline. >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:54 PM >>>>>> To: Pascal Mazon <pascal.ma...@6wind.com> >>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; >>>>>> Mordechay Haimovsky <mo...@mellanox.com>; Ophir Munk >>>> <ophi...@mellanox.com> >>>>>> Subject: [PATCH v3] net/tap: remove queue specific offload >>>>>> support >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not clear if tap PMD supports queue specific offloads, >>>>>> removing the related code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fixes: 95ae196ae10b ("net/tap: use new Rx offloads API") >>>>>> Fixes: 818fe14a9891 ("net/tap: use new Tx offloads API") >>>>>> Cc: mo...@mellanox.com >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Cc: Ophir Munk <ophi...@mellanox.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> v2: >>>>>> * rebased >>>>>> >>>>>> v3: >>>>>> * txq->csum restored, >>>>>> - ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE check removed since ethdev layer takes >>>>>> care of it >>>>>> - tx_conf != NULL check removed, this is internal api who calls this is >>>>>> ethdev and it doesn't pass null tx_conf >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c | 102 >>>>>> +++++------------------------------------- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c >>>>>> b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c index ef33aace9..61b4b5df3 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c >>>>>> @@ -278,31 +278,6 @@ tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa(void) >>>>>> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP; } >>>>>> >>>>>> -static uint64_t >>>>>> -tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa(void) >>>>>> -{ >>>>>> - return DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER | >>>>>> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | >>>>>> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | >>>>>> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM | >>>>>> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP; >>>>>> -} >>>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> TAP PMD supports all of these RX queue specific offloads. I >>>>> suggest to >>>> leave this function in place. >>>>> >>>>>> -static bool >>>>>> -tap_rxq_are_offloads_valid(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint64_t >>>>>> offloads) - >>>> { >>>>>> - uint64_t port_offloads = dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads; >>>>>> - uint64_t queue_supp_offloads = tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa(); >>>>>> - uint64_t port_supp_offloads = tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa(); >>>>>> - >>>>>> - if ((offloads & (queue_supp_offloads | port_supp_offloads)) != >>>>>> - offloads) >>>>>> - return false; >>>>>> - if ((port_offloads ^ offloads) & port_supp_offloads) >>>>>> - return false; >>>>>> - return true; >>>>>> -} >>>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> Putting aside the fact that queue offloads equals port offloads >>>>> (so could >>>> ignore "port_supp_offload" variable) - this function is essential to >>>> validate that the configured Rx offloads are supported by TAP. I >>>> suggest to leave this function in place. >>>>> Without it - testpmd falsely confirms non supported offloads. >>>>> For example before this patch: offloading "hw-vlan-filter" will >>>>> fail as >>>> expected: >>>>> >>>>> testpmd> port config all >>>>> testpmd> port config all hw-vlan-filter on port start all >>>>> Configuring Port 0 (socket 0) >>>>> PMD: net_tap0: 0x1209fc0: TX configured queues number: 1 >>>>> PMD: net_tap0: 0x1209fc0: RX configured queues number: 1 >>>>> PMD: 0x1209fc0: Rx queue offloads 0x120e don't match port offloads >>>>> 0x120e or supported offloads 0x300e Fail to configure port 0 rx >>>>> queues >>>>> >>>>> However, with this patch this configuration is falsely accepted. >>>>> >>>>>> /* Callback to handle the rx burst of packets to the correct >>>>>> interface >>> and >>>>>> * file descriptor(s) in a multi-queue setup. >>>>>> */ >>>>>> @@ -411,31 +386,6 @@ tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa(void) >>>>>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM; } >>>>>> >>>>>> -static uint64_t >>>>>> -tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa(void) >>>>>> -{ >>>>>> - return DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MULTI_SEGS | >>>>>> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | >>>>>> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | >>>>>> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM; >>>>>> -} >>>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> TAP PMD supports all of these TX queue specific offloads. I >>>>> suggest to >>>> leave this function in place. >>>>> >>>>>> -static bool >>>>>> -tap_txq_are_offloads_valid(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint64_t >>>>>> offloads) - >>>> { >>>>>> - uint64_t port_offloads = dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads; >>>>>> - uint64_t queue_supp_offloads = tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa(); >>>>>> - uint64_t port_supp_offloads = tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa(); >>>>>> - >>>>>> - if ((offloads & (queue_supp_offloads | port_supp_offloads)) != >>>>>> - offloads) >>>>>> - return false; >>>>>> - /* Verify we have no conflict with port offloads */ >>>>>> - if ((port_offloads ^ offloads) & port_supp_offloads) >>>>>> - return false; >>>>>> - return true; >>>>>> -} >>>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> This function is essential to validate that the configured Tx >>>>> offloads are >>>> supported by TAP. >>>>> I suggest to leave this function in place. >>>>> >>>>>> static void >>>>>> tap_tx_offload(char *packet, uint64_t ol_flags, unsigned int l2_len, >>>>>> unsigned int l3_len) >>>>>> @@ -763,12 +713,10 @@ tap_dev_info(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, >>>>>> struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info) >>>>>> dev_info->max_tx_queues = RTE_PMD_TAP_MAX_QUEUES; >>>>>> dev_info->min_rx_bufsize = 0; >>>>>> dev_info->speed_capa = tap_dev_speed_capa(); >>>>>> - dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa = >>>>>> tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa(); >>>>>> - dev_info->rx_offload_capa = tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() | >>>>>> - dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa; >>>>>> - dev_info->tx_queue_offload_capa = >>>>>> tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa(); >>>>>> - dev_info->tx_offload_capa = tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa() | >>>>>> - dev_info->tx_queue_offload_capa; >>>>>> + dev_info->rx_offload_capa = >> tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa(); >>>>>> + dev_info->tx_offload_capa = >> tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa(); >>>>>> + dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa = 0; >>>>>> + dev_info->tx_queue_offload_capa = 0; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rx_queue_offloads_capa should be reported as before: >>>>> dev_info->tx_queue_offload_capa = >> tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa(); >>>>> Same for TX offloads. >>>>> >>>>> Port capabilities could return queue capabilities: >>>>> >>>>> Instead of: >>>>> >>>>> dev_info->rx_offload_capa = tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() | >>>>> dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa; >>>>> >>>>> We could return: >>>>> >>>>> dev_info->rx_offload_capa = dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa; >>>>> >>>>> The same argument is valid for Tx as well. >>>>> >>>>>> static int >>>>>> @@ -1094,19 +1042,6 @@ tap_rx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev >>> *dev, >>>>>> return -1; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> - /* Verify application offloads are valid for our port and >>>>>> queue. */ >>>>>> - if (!tap_rxq_are_offloads_valid(dev, rx_conf->offloads)) { >>>>>> - rte_errno = ENOTSUP; >>>>>> - RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, >>>>>> - "%p: Rx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64 >>>>>> - " don't match port offloads 0x%" PRIx64 >>>>>> - " or supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64 "\n", >>>>>> - (void *)dev, rx_conf->offloads, >>>>>> - dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads, >>>>>> - (tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() | >>>>>> - tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa())); >>>>>> - return -rte_errno; >>>>>> - } >>>>> >>>>> The tap_rxq_are_offloads_valid() call is essential. I suggest to >>>>> leave it in >>>> place. >>>>> The RTE_LOG could drop port references to become: >>>>> >>>>> RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, >>>>> "%p: Rx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64 >>>>> " don't match" >>>>> " supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64 "\n", >>>>> (void *)dev, rx_conf->offloads, >>>>> tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa())); >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> rxq->mp = mp; >>>>>> rxq->trigger_seen = 1; /* force initial burst */ >>>>>> rxq->in_port = dev->data->port_id; @@ -1175,29 +1110,12 @@ >>>>>> tap_tx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev >>>> *dev, >>>>>> return -1; >>>>>> dev->data->tx_queues[tx_queue_id] = >>>>>> &internals->txq[tx_queue_id]; >>>>>> txq = dev->data->tx_queues[tx_queue_id]; >>>>>> - /* >>>>>> - * Don't verify port offloads for application which >>>>>> - * use the old API. >>>>>> - */ >>>>>> - if (tx_conf != NULL && >>>>>> - !!(tx_conf->txq_flags & ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE)) { >>>>>> - if (tap_txq_are_offloads_valid(dev, tx_conf->offloads)) >>>>>> { >>>>>> - txq->csum = !!(tx_conf->offloads & >>>>>> - (DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | >>>>>> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | >>>>>> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM)); >>>>>> - } else { >>>>>> - rte_errno = ENOTSUP; >>>>>> - RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, >>>>>> - "%p: Tx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64 >>>>>> - " don't match port offloads 0x%" PRIx64 >>>>>> - " or supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64, >>>>>> - (void *)dev, tx_conf->offloads, >>>>>> - dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads, >>>>>> - tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa()); >>>>>> - return -rte_errno; >>>>>> - } >>>>>> - } >>>>>> + >>>>> >>>>> The tap_txq_are_offloads_valid() call is essential. I suggest to >>>>> leave it in >>>> place. >>>>> The RTE_LOG message could drop comparison between queue and port >>>> capabilities: >>>>> >>>>> RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, >>>>> "%p: Tx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64 >>>>> " don't match" >>>>> " supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64, >>>>> (void *)dev, tx_conf->offloads, >>>>> tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa()); >>>>> >>>>>> + txq->csum = !!(tx_conf->offloads & >>>>>> + (DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | >>>>>> + DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | >>>>>> + DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM)); >>>>>> + >>>>>> ret = tap_setup_queue(dev, internals, tx_queue_id, 0); >>>>>> if (ret == -1) >>>>>> return -1; >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 2.14.3 >>>>> >
