On 11/7/19 9:56 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: > Hi > > From: Andrew Rybchenko >> On 11/6/19 9:58 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Andrew Rybchenko >>>> On 11/5/19 5:05 PM, Matan Azrad wrote: >>>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko >>>>>> On 11/3/19 6:16 PM, Matan Azrad wrote >>>>>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko >>>>>>>> On 11/3/19 9:57 AM, Matan Azrad wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko >>>>>>>>>> On 10/31/19 7:33 PM, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Matan, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Pavan >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some PMDs cannot work when certain offloads are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable/disabled, as a workaround PMDs auto enable/disable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offloads internally and expose it through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev->data-dev_conf.rxmode.offloads. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After device specific dev_configure is called compare the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requested offloads to the offloads exposed by the PMD and, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the PMD failed to enable a given offload then log it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and return -EINVAL from rte_eth_dev_configure, else if the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMD failed to disable a given offload log and continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with rte_eth_dev_configure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rte_eth_dev_configure can be called more than 1 time in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> device life time, How can you know what is the minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offload configurations required by the port after the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>> call? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe putting it in dev info is better, what do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We only return -EINVAL in the case where we enable an >>>>>>>>>>>>> offload advertised by dev_info and the port still fails to >>>>>>>>>>>>> enable it. >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure it is ok that devices may disable\enable >>>>>>>>>>>> offloads under the hood without user notification? >>>>>>>>>>> Some devices already do it. The above check adds validation >>>>>>>>>>> for the same. >>>>>>>>>> The problem is that some offloads cannot be disabled. >>>>>>>>> Yes, I understand it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If application does not request Rx checksum offload since it >>>>>>>>>> does use it, it is not a problem to report it. >>>>>>>>> Yes, for RX checksum I tend to agree that application doesn't >>>>>>>>> care if the >>>>>>>> PMD will calculate the checksum in spite of the offload is >>>>>>>> disabled. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But what's about other offloads: For example in RX: LRO, >>>>>>>>> CRC_KEEP, VLAN_STRIP, JUMBO If the PMD will stay them on while >>>>>>>>> the app is disabling it, It can cause a problems to the >>>>>>>> application (affects the packet length). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, I agree that some offloads are critical to be disabled, but >>>>>>>> RSS_HASH discussed in the changeset is not critical. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, are you agree It should not be checked globally for all the >>>>>>> offloads in >>>>>> ethdev layer? >>>>>> >>>>>> If offload is not requested, but enabled (since PMD cannot disable >>>>>> it), right not it will not fail configure, but warn about it in >>>>>> logs. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In this case warning print is not enough since it can be critical >>>>> for the >>>> application for some offloads. >>>>> It can be very weird for the application to see that some offload >>>>> are on >>>> while the application doesn't expect them to be on. >>>>> it even can cause app crash(at least for the RX offload I wrote >>>>> above). >>>> >>>> The patch improves the situation. Earlier it was silent, now it will >>>> be at least visible. >>> >>> We can do it visible inside the limited PMDs. >> >> Why? > > Because this is not according to what application should understand from the > ethdev API.
It does not answer why it should be inside the limited PMDs instead of ethdev layer. >>>> I'm afraid that in 19.11 release cycle we cannot change it to fail >>>> dev_configure. I think it will be too destructive. Future improvement >>>> should be discussed separately. >>> >>> So we can remove this ethdev patch now and let the PMD to do it until >>> we will find better solution later. >> >> Sorry, but I don't think so. >> >>>>>>> It even be more problematic if the dynamic offload field in mbuf >>>>>>> is not exist at all. >>>>> >>>>> Any answer here? >>> >>> A Rx offload requires dynamic mbuf field cannot stay visible while the >>> app disabling it. Because the dynamic mbuf field probably is not set >>> in the mbuf. May cause problems. >>> >>>> Please, clarify the question. >>>> > > No answer here. Sorry, but I don't understand the problem. If there is no dynamic field, it will not be set. If there is dynamic field, it is the same as regular fields. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For example in TX: TSO, VLAN, MULTI_SEG..... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tx is not that critical since application should not request >>>>>>>> these offloads per- packet. Tx offloads are mainly required to >>>>>>>> ensure that application may request the offload per packet and it >>>>>>>> will be done. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> yes, you right, In TX it looks less critical (for now). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course, it could be a problem if the offload is used, but >>>>>>>>>> application wants to disable it, for example, for debugging >>>>>>>>>> purposes. In this case, the solution is to mask offloads on >>>>>>>>>> application level, which is not ideal as well. >>>>>>>>> Why not ideal? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It eats CPU cycles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, I don't understand your use case here. >>>>>> >>>>>> If application wants to try code path without, for example, Rx >>>>>> checksum offload, it could be insufficient to disable the offload >>>>>> right now, but also required to cleanup offload results flags in >>>>>> each mbuf (if PMD does not support the offload disabling). >>>>> >>>>> What is "right now"? Configuration time? >>>> >>>> Right now is the current state of some drivers in DPDK tree. >>>> >>> >>> OK. I think the offload configuration is in configuration time. No >>> data-path. >>> >>>>> If application will know that PMD cannot disable the rx-checksum in >>>>> configuration time, It can plan to not clean this flag in mbuf for >>>>> each rx >>>> mbuf. >>>> >>>> Yes and application has a way to know it - take a look at >>>> dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads. >>> >>> As I understand, before this patch, this field used for ethdev layer >>> knowledge to track on the application Rx offload configuration. Am I >>> wrong? >> >> I think it is just Rx offloads configuration. >> It is better to have real offloads here since it is used on Rx queue setup to >> mask already enabled offloads. > > And in DPDK or any SW management controls a device, the configuration must be > set by the user. > So, it should reflect the user configuration as is. It is ideal world which is unfortunately too far from real life. There is always a trade off. It is possible to define too restrictive interface which will enforce complicated implementation with bad performance characteristics for no real value. In any case, the patch simply makes the difference visible. It does not enforce any rules except to fail configure if requested offload is not enabled which is a strong violation of the interface. If you don't like it, we can discuss the point. In the area of not requested but enabled offloads, it just adds logs. No changes in behaviour. I'm strongly against making it hard failure in 19.11 since it is too late for the decision. We can discuss it later separately from the patch. >>> And If the meaning is the PMD configuration set (which weirdly can be >>> different from what application want) I think it should be an error - >>> because app doesn't follow the API. >> >> Which app? Which API? > > App - the dpdk application which configures an offload that cannot be masked. > API - The Rx offload field in the ethdev data (which weirdly means what was > configured by the PMD). See above. >>>>> It looks me like PMD limitation which can be solved by 2 >>>>> options: 1. Capability information which say to the app what offload >>>>> may not be disabled. >>>>> 2. Add limitation in the PMD documentation and print warning\error >>>>> massage from the PMD. >>>> >>>> Yes, right now we are going way (2). >>>> >>>>>>>>> If application can know the limitation of offloads disabling >>>>>>>>> (for example to >>>>>>>> read capability on it) >>>>>>>>> The application has all information to take decisions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyway, the patch just tries to highlight difference of applied >>>>>>>>>> from requested. So, it is a step forward. Also, the patch will >>>>>>>>>> fail configure if an offload is requested, but not >>>>>>>> enabled. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can't it break applications? Why does the device expose >>>>>>>>>>>> unsupported offloads in dev info? Does it update the running >>>>>>>>>>>> offload usynchronically? Race? >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain also your specific use case? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matan >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
