Sunday, August 18, 2019 8:39 AM, Andrew Rybchenko:
> <marko.kovace...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/7] ethdev: add mbuf RSS update as a
> offload
>
> On 8/18/19 7:52 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> > Friday, August 16, 2019 10:48 AM, Andrew Rybchenko:
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/7] ethdev: add mbuf RSS update as a
> >> offload
> >>
> >> On 8/16/19 8:55 AM, pbhagavat...@marvell.com wrote:
> >>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com>
> >>>
> >>> Add new Rx offload flag `DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH` which can be
> used
> >> to
> >>> enable/disable PMDs write to `rte_mbuf::hash::rss`.
> >> It should be highlighted that presence of the RSS hash is indicated
> >> by PKT_RX_RSS_HASH flag in mbuf anyway. Now applications have a way
> >> to check that RSS hash delivery is supported and should enable the
> >> offload if RSS hash is used. PMD may still provide the hash even if
> >> the offload is not enabled.
> > I don't understand how PMDs should act w/ this addition when considering
> the API breakage to application.
>
> There is a deprecation notice for it.
> I mentioned in my review notes for one of patches in the series that the
> change should be highlighted in release notes.
> Yes, it is absolutely required if these patches are accepted.
>
> > Currently application don't set this flag, and expect to get the RSS hash
> result on mbuf.
> > If PMDs will not set the RSS hash result when flag is not present then
> applications might break.
> > If they will always set, then there is no meaning for it.
> >
> > as I understand the motivation to save few cycles on the PMD receive path,
> if we want to include it we should treat it as API breakage and documents it
> on the release notes.
> > My option is that some offload should just be usable (OOB) by the fact user
> enabled them (e.g. RSS). no need to complicate the user by checking and set
> this field.
>
> What I don't understand is why some offloads should just work but another
> requires action to enable it. Just because it is the current state of things
> - I
> don't think it is a good motivation. Sorry.
Not because it is the current state of things, because it makes user experience
much simpler.
You enabled RSS -> you get full RSS behavior
You set a flow rule w/ mark -> you get full flow mark behavior
You set checksum -> you get full csum behavior.
> I think more applications use checksum offloads than RSS hash, but it is still
> required to enable it. It looks like no single DPDK example uses RSS hash. So,
> I guess it not widely used by applications as well.
Well there is at least one called ovs-dpdk, that use the RSS result as the key
to access the EMC.
I know of few more, not upstream, ones.
> Anyway these 2 patches for flow action and RSS hash make all Rx offloads
> consistent - if you need something, enable it.
But the user enabled it -
It enabled RSS by setting ETH_MQ_RX_RSS, why does it need to enable another
flag?
Same for flow mark.
>
> And the question is not to save few cycles in the PMD receive path.
> It makes is possible to not deliver both from NIC to host.
> 8 bytes (4 RSS hash and 4 flow mark) are more than 10% for the smallest
> packets.
There is always the line between how much tight control we want to provide to
user (to save cycles/ to save PCI BW) and how much it will be simple for the
user to work on top.
My opinion is that we need to have some basics.
>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
> >>
> >> with above and one note below fixed.
> >>
> >>> ---
> >>> doc/guides/nics/features.rst | 2 ++
> >>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 1 +
> >>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst
> >>> b/doc/guides/nics/features.rst index d4d55f721..f79b69b38 100644
> >>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst
> >>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features.rst
> >>> @@ -274,6 +274,7 @@ Supports RSS hashing on RX.
> >>>
> >>> * **[uses] user config**: ``dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode`` =
> >> ``ETH_MQ_RX_RSS_FLAG``.
> >>> * **[uses] user config**: ``dev_conf.rx_adv_conf.rss_conf``.
> >>> +* **[uses] rte_eth_rxconf,rte_eth_rxmode**:
> >> ``offloads:DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH``.
> >>> * **[provides] rte_eth_dev_info**: ``flow_type_rss_offloads``.
> >>> * **[provides] mbuf**: ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_RX_RSS_HASH``,
> ``mbuf.rss``.
> >>>
> >>> @@ -286,6 +287,7 @@ Inner RSS
> >>> Supports RX RSS hashing on Inner headers.
> >>>
> >>> * **[uses] rte_flow_action_rss**: ``level``.
> >>> +* **[uses] rte_eth_rxconf,rte_eth_rxmode**:
> >> ``offloads:DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH``.
> >>> * **[provides] mbuf**: ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_RX_RSS_HASH``,
> ``mbuf.rss``.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> >>> b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h index f97f0a6e5..889486a11 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> >>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> >>> @@ -1013,6 +1013,7 @@ struct rte_eth_conf {
> >>> #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_KEEP_CRC 0x00010000
> >>> #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCTP_CKSUM 0x00020000
> >>> #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM 0x00040000
> >>> +#define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH 0x00080000
> >> Should be added to rte_rx_offload_names in
> >> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c.
