On 5/5/2018 7:59 PM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> Hi Ferruh, Dai,
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads
>>
>> This patch check if a input requested offloading is valid or not.
>> Any reuqested offloading must be supported in the device capabilities.
>> Any offloading is disabled by default if it is not set in the parameter
>> dev_conf->[rt]xmode.offloads to rte_eth_dev_configure( ) and [rt]x_conf-
>>> offloads to rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ).
>> From application, a pure per-port offloading can't be enabled on any queue if
>> it hasn't been enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> If any offloading is enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ) by application, it
>> is
>> enabled on all queues no matter whether it is per-queue or per-port type
>> and no matter whether it is set or cleared in [rt]x_conf->offloads to
>> rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ).
>> The underlying PMD must be aware that the requested offloadings to PMD
>> specific queue_setup( ) function only carries those offloadings only enabled
>> for the queue but not enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ) and they are
>> certain per-queue type.
>>
>> This patch can make above such checking in a common way in rte_ethdev
>> layer to avoid same checking in underlying PMD.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Dai <wei....@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
>>
>> ---
>> v7:
>> Give the maximum freedom for upper application, only minimal checking is
>> performed in ethdev layer.
>> Only requested specific pure per-queue offloadings are input to underlying
>> PMD.
>>
>> v6:
>> No need enable an offload in queue_setup( ) if it has already been enabled
>> in dev_configure( )
>>
>> v5:
>> keep offload settings sent to PMD same as those from application
>>
>> v4:
>> fix a wrong description in git log message.
>>
>> v3:
>> rework according to dicision of offloading API in community
>>
>> v2:
>> add offloads checking in rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> check if a requested offloading is supported.
>> ---
>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 150
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 150 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> index e560524..0ad05eb 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> @@ -1139,6 +1139,28 @@ rte_eth_dev_configure(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t
>> nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>> ETHER_MAX_LEN;
>> }
>>
>> + /* Any requested offloading must be within its device capabilities */
>> + if ((local_conf.rxmode.offloads & dev_info.rx_offload_capa) !=
>> + local_conf.rxmode.offloads) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%d requested Rx
>> offloads "
>> + "0x%" PRIx64 " doesn't match Rx offloads "
>> + "capabilities 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + local_conf.rxmode.offloads,
>> + dev_info.rx_offload_capa);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> While I am OK with such behavior, we should be more careful not to get into
> the same issue as in [1].
> There are PMD which don't report the capabilities correctly however do expect
> to have the offload configured.
>
> All I am saying it is worth a check and cautious decision if it is right to
> include this one w/o prior application notice and at such late RC of the
> release.
This is valid concern. I think this is better than [1] which was less clear than
this check but yes still a concern.
>
>> + }
>> + if ((local_conf.txmode.offloads & dev_info.tx_offload_capa) !=
>> + local_conf.txmode.offloads) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%d requested Tx
>> offloads "
>> + "0x%" PRIx64 " doesn't match Tx offloads "
>> + "capabilities 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + local_conf.txmode.offloads,
>> + dev_info.tx_offload_capa);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> /* Check that device supports requested rss hash functions. */
>> if ((dev_info.flow_type_rss_offloads |
>> dev_conf->rx_adv_conf.rss_conf.rss_hf) != @@ -1414,6 +1436,8
>> @@ rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t rx_queue_id,
>> struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
>> struct rte_eth_rxconf local_conf;
>> void **rxq;
>> + uint64_t pure_port_offload_capa;
>> + uint64_t only_enabled_for_queue;
>>
>> RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -EINVAL);
>>
>> @@ -1504,6 +1528,68 @@ rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id,
>> uint16_t rx_queue_id,
>> &local_conf.offloads);
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * The requested offloadings by application for this queue
>> + * can be per-queue type or per-port type. and
>> + * they must be within the device offloading capabilities.
>> + */
>> + if ((local_conf.offloads & dev_info.rx_offload_capa) !=
>> + local_conf.offloads) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Ethdev port_id=%d
>> rx_queue_id=%d "
>> + "Requested offload 0x%" PRIx64 "doesn't "
>> + "match per-queue capability 0x%" PRIx64
>> + " in %s\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + rx_queue_id,
>> + local_conf.offloads,
>> + dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa,
>> + __func__);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * A pure per-port offloading can't be enabled for any queue
>> + * if it hasn't been enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> + *
>> + * Following pure_port_offload_capa is the capabilities which
>> + * can't be enabled on some queue while disabled on other queue.
>> + * pure_port_offload_capa must be enabled or disabled on all
>> + * queues at same time.
>> + *
>> + * Following only_enabled_for_queue is the offloadings which
>> + * are enabled for this queue but hasn't been enabled in
>> + * rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> + */
>> + pure_port_offload_capa = dev_info.rx_offload_capa ^
>> + dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa;
>> + only_enabled_for_queue = (local_conf.offloads ^
>> + dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads) &
>> local_conf.offloads;
>
> It looks like above logic could be a lot simpler.
>
> How about:
> local_conf.offloads &= ~dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads; // keep only the
> added offloads on top of the port ones
> if ((local_conf.offloads & dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa) !=
> local_conf.offloads) { //check if added offloads are part of the queue
> offload capa
> ERROR...
+1
>
>
>> + if (only_enabled_for_queue & pure_port_offload_capa) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Ethdev port_id=%d
>> rx_queue_id=%d, only "
>> + "enabled offload 0x%" PRIx64 "for this "
>> + "queue haven't been enabled in "
>> + "dev_configure( ), they are within "
>> + "pure per-port capabilities 0x%" PRIx64
>
> Need to re-work this error message. The user doesn't know what are "pure
> per-port capabilities"
+1
>
>> + " in %s\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + rx_queue_id,
>> + only_enabled_for_queue,
>> + pure_port_offload_capa,
>> + __func__);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If an offloading has already been enabled in
>> + * rte_eth_dev_configure(), it has been enabled on all queues,
>> + * so there is no need to enable it in this queue again.
>> + * The local_conf.offloads input to underlying PMD only carries
>> + * those offloadings which are only enabled on this queue and
>> + * not enabled on all queues.
>> + * The underlying PMD must be aware of this point.
>> + */
>> + local_conf.offloads &= ~dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads;
>> +
>> ret = (*dev->dev_ops->rx_queue_setup)(dev, rx_queue_id,
>> nb_rx_desc,
>> socket_id, &local_conf, mp);
>> if (!ret) {
>> @@ -1549,6 +1635,8 @@ rte_eth_tx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id,
>> uint16_t tx_queue_id,
>> struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
>> struct rte_eth_txconf local_conf;
>> void **txq;
>> + uint64_t pure_port_offload_capa;
>> + uint64_t only_enabled_for_queue;
>>
>> RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -EINVAL);
>>
>> @@ -1612,6 +1700,68 @@ rte_eth_tx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id,
>> uint16_t tx_queue_id,
>> &local_conf.offloads);
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * The requested offloadings by application for this queue
>> + * can be per-queue type or per-port type. and
>> + * they must be within the device offloading capabilities.
>> + */
>> + if ((local_conf.offloads & dev_info.tx_offload_capa) !=
>> + local_conf.offloads) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Ethdev port_id=%d
>> tx_queue_id=%d "
>> + "Requested offload 0x%" PRIx64 "doesn't "
>> + "match per-queue capability 0x%" PRIx64
>> + " in %s\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + tx_queue_id,
>> + local_conf.offloads,
>> + dev_info.tx_queue_offload_capa,
>> + __func__);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * A pure per-port offloading can't be enabled for any queue
>> + * if it hasn't been enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> + *
>> + * Following pure_port_offload_capa is the capabilities which
>> + * can't be enabled on some queue while disabled on other queue.
>> + * pure_port_offload_capa must be enabled or disabled on all
>> + * queues at same time.
>> + *
>> + * Following only_enabled_for_queue is the offloadings which
>> + * are enabled for this queue but hasn't been enabled in
>> + * rte_eth_dev_configure( ).
>> + */
>> + pure_port_offload_capa = dev_info.tx_offload_capa ^
>> + dev_info.tx_queue_offload_capa;
>> + only_enabled_for_queue = (local_conf.offloads ^
>> + dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads) &
>> local_conf.offloads;
>
> Same comments as in the Rx part.
>
>> + if (only_enabled_for_queue & pure_port_offload_capa) {
>> + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Ethdev port_id=%d
>> tx_queue_id=%d, only "
>> + "enabled offload 0x%" PRIx64 "for this "
>> + "queue haven't been enabled in "
>> + "dev_configure( ), they are within "
>> + "pure per-port capabilities 0x%" PRIx64
>> + " in %s\n",
>> + port_id,
>> + tx_queue_id,
>> + only_enabled_for_queue,
>> + pure_port_offload_capa,
>> + __func__);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If an offloading has already been enabled in
>> + * rte_eth_dev_configure(), it has been enabled on all queues,
>> + * so there is no need to enable it in this queue again.
>> + * The local_conf.offloads input to underlying PMD only carries
>> + * those offloadings which are only enabled on this queue and
>> + * not enabled on all queues.
>> + * The underlying PMD must be aware of this point.
>> + */
>> + local_conf.offloads &= ~dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads;
>> +
>> return eth_err(port_id, (*dev->dev_ops->tx_queue_setup)(dev,
>> tx_queue_id, nb_tx_desc, socket_id, &local_conf)); }
>> --
>> 2.7.5
>
>
> As for Ferruh's comment
>>
>> PMDs needs to be updated for:
>> 1- Remove existing offload verify checks
>> 2- Update offload configure logic based on new values
>>
>> (1) can be part of this patch. But PMD maintainers should send update
>> for (2) if a change required.
>>
>> cc'ed Shahaf, specially for (2) one.
>
> I think PMD maintainers can help with that. If it will be integrated enough
> time before the release Mellanox PMDs can be converted by us.
>
Thanks.
As far as I can see in v8 Wei is adding some code [2] to keep same input for the
PMD to not break the logic in PMD. But later PMD can be updated for better
support of new offload input to the PMD.
[2]
+ uint64_t offloads = conf->offloads |
+ dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads;
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/38645/
>
>
