> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2020 20:03 > To: Slava Ovsiienko <[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/9] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split > > 12/10/2020 18:38, Andrew Rybchenko: > > On 10/12/20 7:19 PM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote: > > > int > > > +rte_eth_rxseg_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t rx_queue_id, > > > + uint16_t nb_rx_desc, unsigned int socket_id, > > > + const struct rte_eth_rxconf *rx_conf, > > > + const struct rte_eth_rxseg *rx_seg, uint16_t n_seg) { > > > + int ret; > > > + uint16_t seg_idx; > > > + uint32_t mbp_buf_size; > > > > <start-of-dup> > > > > > + struct rte_eth_dev *dev; > > > + struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info; > > > + struct rte_eth_rxconf local_conf; > > > + void **rxq; > > > + > > > + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -EINVAL); > > > + > > > + dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id]; > > > + if (rx_queue_id >= dev->data->nb_rx_queues) { > > > + RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Invalid RX queue_id=%u\n", > rx_queue_id); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > > <end-of-dup> > > > > > + > > > + if (rx_seg == NULL) { > > > + RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Invalid null description pointer\n"); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (n_seg == 0) { > > > + RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Invalid zero description > number\n"); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + > > > + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->rxseg_queue_setup, > > > +-ENOTSUP); > > > + > > > > <start-of-dup> > > > > > + /* > > > + * Check the size of the mbuf data buffer. > > > + * This value must be provided in the private data of the memory > pool. > > > + * First check that the memory pool has a valid private data. > > > + */ > > > + ret = rte_eth_dev_info_get(port_id, &dev_info); > > > + if (ret != 0) > > > + return ret; > > > > <end-of-dup> > > > > > + > > > + for (seg_idx = 0; seg_idx < n_seg; seg_idx++) { > > > + struct rte_mempool *mp = rx_seg[seg_idx].mp; > > > + > > > + if (mp->private_data_size < > > > + sizeof(struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private)) { > > > + RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "%s private_data_size %d < > %d\n", > > > + mp->name, (int)mp->private_data_size, > > > + (int)sizeof(struct > rte_pktmbuf_pool_private)); > > > + return -ENOSPC; > > > + } > > > + > > > + mbp_buf_size = rte_pktmbuf_data_room_size(mp); > > > + if (mbp_buf_size < rx_seg[seg_idx].length + > > > + rx_seg[seg_idx].offset + > > > + (seg_idx ? 0 : > > > + (uint32_t)RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM)) { > > > + RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, > > > + "%s mbuf_data_room_size %d < %d" > > > + " (segment length=%d + segment > offset=%d)\n", > > > + mp->name, (int)mbp_buf_size, > > > + (int)(rx_seg[seg_idx].length + > > > + rx_seg[seg_idx].offset), > > > + (int)rx_seg[seg_idx].length, > > > + (int)rx_seg[seg_idx].offset); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > > <start-of-huge-dup> > > > > > + /* Use default specified by driver, if nb_rx_desc is zero */ > > > + if (nb_rx_desc == 0) { > > > + nb_rx_desc = dev_info.default_rxportconf.ring_size; > > > + /* If driver default is also zero, fall back on EAL default */ > > > + if (nb_rx_desc == 0) > > > + nb_rx_desc = > RTE_ETH_DEV_FALLBACK_RX_RINGSIZE; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (nb_rx_desc > dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_max || > > > + nb_rx_desc < dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_min || > > > + nb_rx_desc % dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_align != 0) { > > > + > > > + RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, > > > + "Invalid value for nb_rx_desc(=%hu), should be: " > > > + "<= %hu, >= %hu, and a product of %hu\n", > > > + nb_rx_desc, dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_max, > > > + dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_min, > > > + dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_align); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (dev->data->dev_started && > > > + !(dev_info.dev_capa & > > > + RTE_ETH_DEV_CAPA_RUNTIME_RX_QUEUE_SETUP)) > > > + return -EBUSY; > > > + > > > + if (dev->data->dev_started && > > > + (dev->data->rx_queue_state[rx_queue_id] != > > > + RTE_ETH_QUEUE_STATE_STOPPED)) > > > + return -EBUSY; > > > + > > > + rxq = dev->data->rx_queues; > > > + if (rxq[rx_queue_id]) { > > > + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops- > >rx_queue_release, > > > + -ENOTSUP); > > > + (*dev->dev_ops->rx_queue_release)(rxq[rx_queue_id]); > > > + rxq[rx_queue_id] = NULL; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (rx_conf == NULL) > > > + rx_conf = &dev_info.default_rxconf; > > > + > > > + local_conf = *rx_conf; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * If an offloading has already been enabled in > > > + * rte_eth_dev_configure(), it has been enabled on all queues, > > > + * so there is no need to enable it in this queue again. > > > + * The local_conf.offloads input to underlying PMD only carries > > > + * those offloadings which are only enabled on this queue and > > > + * not enabled on all queues. > > > + */ > > > + local_conf.offloads &= ~dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * New added offloadings for this queue are those not enabled in > > > + * rte_eth_dev_configure() and they must be per-queue type. > > > + * A pure per-port offloading can't be enabled on a queue while > > > + * disabled on another queue. A pure per-port offloading can't > > > + * be enabled for any queue as new added one if it hasn't been > > > + * enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure(). > > > + */ > > > + if ((local_conf.offloads & dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa) != > > > + local_conf.offloads) { > > > + RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, > > > + "Ethdev port_id=%d rx_queue_id=%d, new added > offloads" > > > + " 0x%"PRIx64" must be within per-queue offload" > > > + " capabilities 0x%"PRIx64" in %s()\n", > > > + port_id, rx_queue_id, local_conf.offloads, > > > + dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa, > > > + __func__); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * If LRO is enabled, check that the maximum aggregated packet > > > + * size is supported by the configured device. > > > + */ > > > + if (local_conf.offloads & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO) { > > > + if (dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.max_lro_pkt_size == 0) > > > + dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.max_lro_pkt_size = > > > + dev->data- > >dev_conf.rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len; > > > + int ret = check_lro_pkt_size(port_id, > > > + dev->data- > >dev_conf.rxmode.max_lro_pkt_size, > > > + dev->data- > >dev_conf.rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len, > > > + dev_info.max_lro_pkt_size); > > > + if (ret != 0) > > > + return ret; > > > + } > > > > <end-of-huge-dup> > > > > IMO It is not acceptable to duplication so much code. > > It is simply unmaintainable. > > > > NACK > > Can it be solved by making rte_eth_rx_queue_setup() a wrapper on top of > this new rte_eth_rxseg_queue_setup() ? > It would be the code refactoring. The more simple solution - provide the subroutine to perform the common part of parameters check.
It seems there are no strong decision-making pro's and con's for these two approaches. As I said - from my side the main concern of including segment descriptions into config structure is introducing ambiguity of some kind. But, if we decide to switch to this approach - will handle. With best regards, Slava
