> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 11:56 AM
> To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Dekel Peled
> <dek...@mellanox.com>; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>;
> Kovacevic, Marko <marko.kovace...@intel.com>; nhor...@tuxdriver.com;
> ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com;
> somnath.ko...@broadcom.com; Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>;
> xuanziya...@huawei.com;
> cloud.wangxiao...@huawei.com; zhouguoy...@huawei.com; Lu, Wenzhuo
> <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; Slava
> Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com>;
> rm...@marvell.com; shsha...@marvell.com; maxime.coque...@redhat.com; Bie,
> Tiwei <tiwei....@intel.com>; Wang, Zhihong
> <zhihong.w...@intel.com>; yongw...@vmware.com; Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>; arybche...@solarflare.com; Wu,
> Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; Iremonger, Bernard
> <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] ethdev: support API to set max LRO
> packet size
>
>
>
> From: Ferruh Yigit
> > On 11/8/2019 10:10 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Ferruh Yigit
> > >> On 11/8/2019 6:54 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > >>> Hi
> > >>>
> > >>> From: Ferruh Yigit
> > >>>> On 11/7/2019 12:35 PM, Dekel Peled wrote:
> > >>>>> @@ -1266,6 +1286,18 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN;
> > >>>>> }
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> + /*
> > >>>>> + * If LRO is enabled, check that the maximum aggregated
> > packet
> > >>>>> + * size is supported by the configured device.
> > >>>>> + */
> > >>>>> + if (dev_conf->rxmode.offloads &
> > DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO) {
> > >>>>> + ret = check_lro_pkt_size(
> > >>>>> + port_id, dev_conf-
> > >>>>> rxmode.max_lro_pkt_size,
> > >>>>> + dev_info.max_lro_pkt_size);
> > >>>>> + if (ret != 0)
> > >>>>> + goto rollback;
> > >>>>> + }
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This check forces applications that enable LRO to provide
> > >> 'max_lro_pkt_size'
> > >>>> config value.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes.(we can break an API, we noticed it)
> > >>
> > >> I am not talking about API/ABI breakage, that part is OK.
> > >> With this check, if the application requested LRO offload but not
> > >> provided 'max_lro_pkt_size' value, device configuration will fail.
> > >>
> > > Yes
> > >> Can there be a case application is good with whatever the PMD can
> > >> support as max?
> > > Yes can be - you know, we can do everything we want but it is better to be
> > consistent:
> > > Due to the fact of Max rx pkt len field is mandatory for JUMBO offload,
> > > max
> > lro pkt len should be mandatory for LRO offload.
> > >
> > > So your question is actually why both, non-lro packets and LRO packets max
> > size are mandatory...
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it should be important values for net applications management.
> > > Also good for mbuf size managements.
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>>> - Why it is mandatory now, how it was working before if it is
> > >>>> mandatory value?
> > >>>
> > >>> It is the same as max_rx_pkt_len which is mandatory for jumbo frame
> > >> offload.
> > >>> So now, when the user configures a LRO offload he must to set max
> > >>> lro pkt
> > >> len.
> > >>> We don't want to confuse the user here with the max rx pkt len
> > >> configurations and behaviors, they should be with same logic.
> > >>>
> > >>> This parameter defines well the LRO behavior.
> > >>> Before this, each PMD took its own interpretation to what should be
> > >>> the
> > >> maximum size for LRO aggregated packets.
> > >>> Now, the user must say what is his intension, and the ethdev can
> > >>> limit it
> > >> according to the device capability.
> > >>> By this way, also, the PMD can organize\optimize its data-path more.
> > >>> Also, the application can create different mempools for LRO queues
> > >>> to
> > >> allow bigger packet receiving for LRO traffic.
> > >>>
> > >>>> - What happens if PMD doesn't provide 'max_lro_pkt_size', so it is '0'?
> > >>> Yes, you can see the feature description Dekel added.
> > >>> This patch also updates all the PMDs support an LRO for non-0 value.
> > >>
> > >> Of course I can see the updates Matan, my point is "What happens if
> > >> PMD doesn't provide 'max_lro_pkt_size'",
> > >> 1) There is no check for it right, so it is acceptable?
> > >
> > > There is check.
> > > If the capability is 0, any non-zero configuration will fail.
> > >
> > >> 2) Are we making this filed mandatory to provide for PMDs, it is easy
> > >> to make new fields mandatory for PMDs but is this really necessary?
> > >
> > > Yes, for consistence.
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> as same as max rx pkt len, no?
> > >>>
> > >>>> - What do you think setting 'max_lro_pkt_size' config value to what
> > >>>> PMD provided if application doesn't provide it?
> > >>> Same answers as above.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> If application doesn't care the value, as it has been till now, and
> > >> not provided explicit 'max_lro_pkt_size', why not ethdev level use
> > >> the value provided by PMD instead of failing?
> > >
> > > Again, same question we can ask on max rx pkt len.
> > >
> > > Looks like the packet size is very important value which should be set by
> > the application.
> > >
> > > Previous applications have no option to configure it, so they haven't
> > configure it, (probably cover it somehow) I think it is our miss to supply
> > this
> > info.
> > >
> > > Let's do it in same way as we do max rx pkt len (as this patch main idea).
> > > Later, we can change both to other meaning.
> > >
> >
> > I think it is not a good reason to introduce a new mandatory config option
> > for
> > application because of 'max_rx_pkt_len' does it.
>
> It is mandatory only if LRO offload is configured.
So max_rx_pkt_len will remain max size of one packet,
while max_lro_len will be max accumulate size for each LRO session?
BTW, I think that for ixgbe max lro is RTE_IPV4_MAX_PKT_LEN.
ixgbe_vf, as I remember, doesn’t support LRO at all.
>
> > Will it work, if:
> > - If application doesn't provide this value, use the PMD max
>
> May cause a problem if the mbuf size is not enough for the PMD maximum.
Another question, what will happen if PMD will ignore that value and will
generate packets bigger then requested?
>
> > - If both application and PMD doesn't provide this value, fail on
> > configure()?
>
> It will work.
> In my opinion - not ideal.
>
> Matan
>
