On 9/10/2019 4:18 PM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 23:03
>> 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 3:19 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think I understand your 'value saves bits' concern now:
>>>
>>> What you mentioned value such as 1, 2, 3 has been *shifted* as new options:
>>> (1 << 2),
>>> (2 << 2), (3 << 2). The *shifted* value seems be easily for using, like,
>>> you don't
>>> need to re-define another enum like enum ...vector_mode { SSE, AVX2 } for
>>> accessing.
>>> And we can extract the vector mode easy: options & BURST_VECTOR_MODE_MASK,
>>> no need to
>>> shift right again for getting the pure number. And for displaying name, it
>>> also should
>>> be consistent:
>>> ...
>>> case RTE_ETH_BURST_VECTOR: return "Vector";
>>> case RTE_ETH_BURST_ALTIVEC: return "AltiVec";
>>> case RTE_ETH_BURST_NEON: return "Neon";
>>>
>>
>> Yep, this is what I was suggesting, agree that bitwise is a little easier,
>> and
>> specially after having separate Rx/Tx APIs there are enough room in the
>> variable, so ok with your suggestion.
>> But please reserve some additional room future vectorisation modes, I would
>> say
>> overall 14 would be good, so first word can be for modes.
>
> Got it, will change 4 bits for vector mode for saving the bit space.
>
Please keep as you suggested, as bitfiled for simplicity, it looks like there is
already enough space.
