> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 23:34
> 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 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.
Got it, the code is clean now.
