From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vl...@cloudius-systems.com] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 9:50 PM To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev at dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
On 01/09/15 07:54, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vl...@cloudius-systems.com] Sent: Friday, January 9, 2015 2:49 AM To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at dpdk.org> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode On 01/08/15 11:19, Vlad Zolotarov wrote: On 01/07/15 08:32, Ouyang Changchun wrote: Check mq mode for VMDq RSS, handle it correctly instead of returning an error; Also remove the limitation of per pool queue number has max value of 1, because the per pool queue number could be 2 or 4 if it is VMDq RSS mode; The number of rxq specified in config will determine the mq mode for VMDq RSS. Signed-off-by: Changchun Ouyang <changchun.ouyang at intel.com><mailto:changchun.ouyang at intel.com> changes in v5: - Fix '<' issue, it should be '<=' to test rxq number; - Extract a function to remove the embeded switch-case statement. --- lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index 95f2ceb..8363e26 100644 --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c @@ -503,6 +503,31 @@ rte_eth_dev_tx_queue_config(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint16_t nb_queues) } static int +rte_eth_dev_check_vf_rss_rxq_num(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q) +{ + struct rte_eth_dev *dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id]; + switch (nb_rx_q) { + case 1: + case 2: + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active = + ETH_64_POOLS; + break; + case 4: + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active = + ETH_32_POOLS; + break; + default: + return -EINVAL; + } + + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = nb_rx_q; + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).def_pool_q_idx = + dev->pci_dev->max_vfs * nb_rx_q; + + return 0; +} + +static int rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q, const struct rte_eth_conf *dev_conf) { @@ -510,8 +535,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q, if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active != 0) { /* check multi-queue mode */ - if ((dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_RSS) || - (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB) || + if ((dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB) || (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB_RSS) || (dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_TX_DCB)) { /* SRIOV only works in VMDq enable mode */ @@ -525,7 +549,6 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q, } switch (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode) { - case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS: case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB: case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB_RSS: /* DCB/RSS VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement yet */ @@ -534,6 +557,25 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q, "unsupported VMDQ mq_mode rx %u\n", port_id, dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode); return (-EINVAL); + case ETH_MQ_RX_RSS: + PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8 + " SRIOV active, " + "Rx mq mode is changed from:" + "mq_mode %u into VMDQ mq_mode %u\n", + port_id, + dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode, + dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode); + case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS: + dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS; + if (nb_rx_q <= RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool) + if (rte_eth_dev_check_vf_rss_rxq_num(port_id, nb_rx_q) != 0) { + PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%d" + " SRIOV active, invalid queue" + " number for VMDQ RSS\n", + port_id); Some nitpicking here: I'd add the allowed values descriptions to the error message. Something like: "invalid queue number for VMDQ RSS. Allowed values are 1, 2 or 4\n". + return -EINVAL; + } + break; default: /* ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_RX_NONE */ /* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */ dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY; @@ -553,8 +595,6 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q, default: /* ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_TX_NONE */ /* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */ dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY; - if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1) - RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1; I'm not sure u may just remove it. These lines originally belong to a different flow. Are u sure u can remove them like that? What if the mq_mode is ETH_MQ_RX_NONE and nb_q_per_pool has been initialized to 4 or 8 in ixgbe_pf_host_init()? I misread the patch - these lines belong to the txmode.mq_mode switch case. I think it's ok to remove these really strange lines here. And when I look at it i think for the similar reasons the similar lines should be removed in the Rx case too: consider non-RSS case with MQ DCB Tx configuration. I search code in this function, only one place has " if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1) RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;" The only place is default branch, which is for rx_none, or vmdq_only mode, Here is a snippet of an rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode() from the current master: switch (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode) { case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS: case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB: case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB_RSS: /* DCB/RSS VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement yet */ PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8 " SRIOV active, " "unsupported VMDQ mq_mode rx %u\n", port_id, dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode); return (-EINVAL); default: /* ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_RX_NONE */ /* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */ dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY; if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1) <---- This is one RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1; break; } switch (dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode) { case ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_DCB: /* DCB VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement yet */ PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8 " SRIOV active, " "unsupported VMDQ mq_mode tx %u\n", port_id, dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode); return (-EINVAL); default: /* ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_TX_NONE */ /* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */ dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY; if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1) <------ This is two. This is what your patch is removing RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1; break; } Changchun: yes you are correct, what I mean in my last response is that only one place AFTER my removal, so there are 2 places before my removal. no controversial here. We don't need remove this, as it should assign as 1 because it did use 1 queue per pool. And why is that? Just because RSS was not enabled? And what if a user wants multiple Tx queues? Mode 1100b of MRQE for instance? Changchun: I can explain why I need this change(remove the second place) here, In the txmode, when txmode is ETH_MQ_TX_NONE, but the rx mode could either be ETH_MQ_RX_NONE or ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS, so we could not forcedly set nb_q_per_pool into 1 just hit the condition of txmode is ETH_MQ_TX_NONE, Because we need consider it is combination of rx mode is ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS, and tx mode is ETH_MQ_TX_NONE, In such a case, the queue number per pool could be 1, or 2, or 4. In another hand, introducing ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_RSS for tx mode, seems very strange, because tx side has no rss feature. thanks Changchun
