Jakub Kicinski wrote: > Run the test against HW GRO and LRO. NICs I have pass the base cases. > Interestingly all are happy to build GROs larger than 64k. > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <[email protected]> > --- > CC: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > --- > tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/gro.py | 50 ++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/gro.py > b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/gro.py > index 6d633bdc7e67..ea7070b033d4 100755 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/gro.py > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/gro.py > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ from lib.py import ksft_variants > defer(ethtool, " ".join(old), host=host) > > > -def _setup(cfg, test_name): > +def _setup(cfg, mode, test_name): > """ Setup hardware loopback mode for GRO testing. """ > > if not hasattr(cfg, "bin_remote"): > @@ -108,16 +108,37 @@ from lib.py import ksft_variants > _set_mtu_restore(cfg.dev, 4096, None) > _set_mtu_restore(cfg.remote_dev, 4096, cfg.remote) > > - flush_path = f"/sys/class/net/{cfg.ifname}/gro_flush_timeout" > - irq_path = f"/sys/class/net/{cfg.ifname}/napi_defer_hard_irqs" > + if mode == "sw": > + flush_path = f"/sys/class/net/{cfg.ifname}/gro_flush_timeout" > + irq_path = f"/sys/class/net/{cfg.ifname}/napi_defer_hard_irqs" > > - _write_defer_restore(cfg, flush_path, "200000", defer_undo=True) > - _write_defer_restore(cfg, irq_path, "10", defer_undo=True) > + _write_defer_restore(cfg, flush_path, "200000", defer_undo=True) > + _write_defer_restore(cfg, irq_path, "10", defer_undo=True) > > - _set_ethtool_feat(cfg.ifname, cfg.feat, > - {"generic-receive-offload": True, > - "rx-gro-hw": False, > - "large-receive-offload": False}) > + _set_ethtool_feat(cfg.ifname, cfg.feat, > + {"generic-receive-offload": True, > + "rx-gro-hw": False, > + "large-receive-offload": False}) > + elif mode == "hw": > + # The only way to get HW GRO but elide SW GRO is to install > + # a dummy XDP generic program. Disabling SW GRO as a feature > + # would also disable HW GRO. > + prog = cfg.net_lib_dir / "xdp_dummy.bpf.o" > + ip(f"link set dev {cfg.ifname} xdpgeneric obj {prog} sec xdp") > + defer(ip, f"link set dev {cfg.ifname} xdpgeneric off") > + > + # Attaching XDP may change features, fetch the latest state > + feat = ethtool(f"-k {cfg.ifname}", json=True)[0] > + > + _set_ethtool_feat(cfg.ifname, feat, > + {"generic-receive-offload": True, > + "rx-gro-hw": True, > + "large-receive-offload": False}) > + elif mode == "lro": > + _set_ethtool_feat(cfg.ifname, cfg.feat, > + {"generic-receive-offload": False, So GRO off disables HW_GRO, but not LRO? That difference is behavior is confusing. Could we still see this as a regression and make the ethtool HW_GRO feature equally independent from SW_GRO? > + "rx-gro-hw": False, > + "large-receive-offload": True}) > > try: > # Disable TSO for local tests > @@ -132,19 +153,20 @@ from lib.py import ksft_variants > def _gro_variants(): > """Generator that yields all combinations of protocol and test types.""" > > - for protocol in ["ipv4", "ipv6", "ipip"]: > - for test_name in ["data", "ack", "flags", "tcp", "ip", "large"]: > - yield protocol, test_name > + for mode in ["sw", "hw", "lro"]: > + for protocol in ["ipv4", "ipv6", "ipip"]: > + for test_name in ["data", "ack", "flags", "tcp", "ip", "large"]: > + yield mode, protocol, test_name > > > @ksft_variants(_gro_variants()) > -def test(cfg, protocol, test_name): > +def test(cfg, mode, protocol, test_name): > """Run a single GRO test with retries.""" > > ipver = "6" if protocol[-1] == "6" else "4" > cfg.require_ipver(ipver) > > - _setup(cfg, test_name) > + _setup(cfg, mode, test_name) > > base_cmd_args = [ > f"--{protocol}", > -- > 2.51.1 >
