On 9/10/2019 4:17 PM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 23:00
>> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
>> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
>> Cc: Ray Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu>; dev@dpdk.org; Sun, Chenmin
>> <chenmin....@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/3] ethdev: add the API for getting trace
>> information
>>
>> On 9/10/2019 12:41 PM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 17:15
>>>> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
>>>> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Ray Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu>; dev@dpdk.org; Sun, Chenmin
>>>> <chenmin....@intel.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/3] ethdev: add the API for getting trace
>>>> information
>>>>
>>>> On 9/10/2019 9:37 AM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 16:07
>>>>>> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
>>>>>> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Ray Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu>; dev@dpdk.org; Sun, Chenmin
>>>>>> <chenmin....@intel.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/3] ethdev: add the API for getting
>>>>>> trace information
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/10/2019 5:36 AM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks Ferruh, Bruce.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 21:18
>>>>>>>> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>; Ray Kinsella
>>>>>>>> <m...@ashroe.eu>; dev@dpdk.org; Sun,
>>>> Chenmin
>>>>>>>> <chenmin....@intel.com>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/3] ethdev: add the API for getting
>>>>>>>> trace information
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/9/2019 1:50 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/9/2019 1:40 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 12:23:36PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2019 3:42 AM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 22:22
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Ray Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu>; Wang, Haiyue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <haiyue.w...@intel.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/3] ethdev: add the API for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting trace information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2019 1:51 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/08/2019 04:24, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:06:10 +0800
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haiyue Wang <haiyue.w...@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enhance the PMD to support retrieving trace information like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rx/Tx burst selection etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.w...@intel.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 9 +++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_core.h | 4 ++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 17d183e..6098fad 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -4083,6 +4083,24 @@ rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get(uint16_t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port_id, uint16_t queue_id,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +rte_eth_trace_info_get(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t queue_id,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + enum rte_eth_trace type, char *buf, int
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sz)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better to use struct as argument instead of individual variables
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> easier to extend the struct later if needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (buf == NULL)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->trace_info_get,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -ENOTSUP);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return dev->dev_ops->trace_info_get(dev, queue_id,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type, buf, sz);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if queueid is out of bounds?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bigger problem is that this information is like a log
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and unstructured, which makes it device specific and useless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for automation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO - this is much better implemented as a capability bitfield,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be queried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to return the datapath capability as bitfield.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also +1 to have a new API,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I am not sure about the API name, 'rte_eth_trace_info_get()',
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we find
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something better instead of 'trace' there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I think we should limit this API only to get current datapath
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for clarity of the API don't return capability or not datapath
>>>>>>>>>>>>> related config.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also this information not always supported in queue level, what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having ability to get this information in port level,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like this API can return a struct, which may have a field that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> says if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> output is for queue or port, or this can be another bitfield,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> #define RX_SCALAR (1ULL < 0)
>>>>>>>>>>>> #define RX_VECTOR_AVX2 ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What about having RX_VECTOR value, later another bit group for the
>>>>>>>>>>> details of
>>>>>>>>>>> the vectorization:
>>>>>>>>>>> SSE
>>>>>>>>>>> AVX2
>>>>>>>>>>> AVX512
>>>>>>>>>>> NEON
>>>>>>>>>>> ALTIVEC
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since above options can exist together, what about using values for
>>>>>>>>>>> them instead
>>>>>>>>>>> of bitfields? Reserving 4 bits, 2^4 = 16, can be enough I think for
>>>>>>>>>>> long term.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rather than having named vector types, we just need to worry about
>>>>>>>>>> the ones
>>>>>>>>>> for the current architecture. Therefore I'd suggest just using vector
>>>>>>>>>> widths, one bit each for 16B, 32B and 64B vector support. For
>>>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>> multiple values, 16 combinations is not enough for all the
>>>>>>>>>> possibilities.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vector width can be an option too, no objection there. But this is
>>>>>>>>> only for
>>>>>>>>> current configuration, so it can be a combination, we have now 5
>>>>>>>>> types and
>>>>>>>>> allocating space for 16.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> correction: it can *not* be a combination
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we can merge the RX_VECTOR and TX_VECTOR together, use 6 bits
>>>>>>> for vector
>>>>>>> mode detail. And for vector width, the SSE, NEON name should indicates
>>>>>>> it ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I renamed the definitions to try to make things clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> enum rte_eth_burst_mode_option {
>>>>>>> BURST_SCALAR = (1 << 0),
>>>>>>> BURST_VECTOR = (1 << 1),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BURST_VECTOR_MODE_MASK = (0x3F << 2),
>>>>>>> BURST_ALTIVEC = (1 << 2),
>>>>>>> BURST_NEON = (2 << 2),
>>>>>>> BURST_SSE = (3 << 2),
>>>>>>> BURST_AVX2 = (4 << 2),
>>>>>>> BURST_AVX512 = (5 << 2),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we need to have bitfields for this, I was suggesting reserve 4 bits,
>>>>>> bit 2-5
>>>>>> (inclusive) and use their value:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BURST_VECTOR_MODE_IDX = 2
>>>>>> BURST_VECTOR_MODE_SIZE = 4
>>>>>> BURST_VECTOR_MODE_MASK =
>>>>>> ((1 << BURST_VECTOR_MODE_SIZE) - 1) << BURST_VECTOR_MODE_IDX
>>>>>>
>>>>>> vector_mode = (options & BURST_VECTOR_MODE_MASK) >> BURST_VECTOR_MODE_IDX
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (vector_mode == 0) // BURST_SSE
>>>>>> if (vector_mode == 1) // BURST_AVX2
>>>>>> if (vector_mode == 2) // BURST_AVX512
>>>>>> if (vector_mode == 3) // BURST_NEON
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can any vector mode be combination of above, if not why use bitfields?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I use it as this to *set* ...
>>>>>
>>>>> else if (pkt_burst == i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2)
>>>>> options = BURST_VECTOR | BURST_AVX2 | BURST_SCATTERED;
>>>>> else if (pkt_burst == i40e_recv_pkts_vec_avx2)
>>>>> options = BURST_VECTOR | BURST_AVX2;
>>>>> else if (pkt_burst == i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec)
>>>>> options = BURST_VECTOR | BURST_SSE | BURST_SCATTERED;
>>>>> else if (pkt_burst == i40e_recv_pkts_vec)
>>>>> options = BURST_VECTOR | BURST_SSE;
>>>>>
>>>>> Then *get* like this, since we reserve the bit group.
>>>>>
>>>>> static void
>>>>> burst_mode_options_display(uint64_t options)
>>>>> {
>>>>> uint64_t vec_mode = options & BURST_VECTOR_MODE_MASK;
>>>>> uint64_t opt;
>>>>>
>>>>> options &= ~BURST_VECTOR_MODE_MASK;
>>>>>
>>>>> for (opt = 1; options != 0; opt <<= 1, options >>= 1) {
>>>>> if (!(options & 1))
>>>>> continue;
>>>>>
>>>>> printf(" %s", rte_eth_burst_mode_option_name(opt));
>>>>>
>>>>> if (opt == BURST_VECTOR)
>>>>> printf("(%s)",
>>>>> rte_eth_burst_mode_option_name(vec_mode));
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can see how you intended use it, only they don't need to be bitfield and
>>>> using
>>>> with value saves bits.
>>>> Also I think good to reserve some bits for future modes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "BURST_VECTOR_MODE_MASK = (0x3F << 2)" has reserved 63 non-zero bits on
>>> position 2 ~ 7.
>>> Then from bit 8, a new definition: BURST_SCATTERED = (1 << 8).
>>>
>>> "using with value saves bits" -- Sorry, I didn't get the point. :-(
>>> vector_mode = (options & BURST_VECTOR_MODE_MASK) >> BURST_VECTOR_MODE_IDX
>>>
>>> From above, 'vector_mode's bits are from 'options' bits stream, how to save
>>> bits ?
>>> In my understanding, this is some kind of more-bit-field, not
>>> each-bit-field.
>>>
>>> I defined them together, so can quick check the vector type, like
>>> (options & BURST_VECTOR_MODE_MASK) == BURST_NEON.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BURST_SCATTERED = (1 << 8),
>>>>>>> BURST_BULK_ALLOC = (1 << 9),
>>>>>>> BURST_NORMAL = (1 << 10),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure about this one, what is the difference between scalar?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Extract it from the function name and the debug message.
>>>>>
>>>>> if (pkt_burst == i40e_recv_scattered_pkts)
>>>>> options = BURST_SCALAR | BURST_SCATTERED;
>>>>> else if (pkt_burst == i40e_recv_pkts_bulk_alloc)
>>>>> options = BURST_SCALAR | BURST_BULK_ALLOC;
>>>>> else if (pkt_burst == i40e_recv_pkts)
>>>>> options = BURST_SCALAR | BURST_NORMAL;
>>>>
>>>> What is the difference between 'BURST_SCALAR' & "BURST_SCALAR |
>>>> BURST_NORMAL" ?
>>>
>>> IMO, "SCALAR" should be "non-Vector" ? Like "BURST_VECTOR" will append with
>>> "SSE/AVX2" etc, "SCALAR" will append with other option bits. "Normal" is
>>> just
>>> handing the Descriptor one by one as *normal*. As I said, I got this name
>>> idea
>>> from the original log to try cover the right burst behaviors. :)
>>
>> Why using an additional flag to say there is not additional feature.
>> If mbuf bulk alloc supported it is: SCALAR | BULK_ALLOC
>> if scattered packets supported it is: SCALAR | SCATTERED
>> If no additional feature supported, why not just SCALAR ?
>>
>
> If I understand correctly, removed the unnecessary 'BURST_NORMAL' ?
>
Yes, that is what I suggest.
