On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:57 PM Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 1:13 PM Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Jerin
>
> Hi Slava,
>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 21:57
> > > To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>
> > > Cc: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> > > <tho...@monjalon.net>; Stephen Hemminger
> > > <step...@networkplumber.org>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>;
> > > Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; Maxime Coquelin
> > > <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; David Marchand
> > > <david.march...@redhat.com>; Andrew Rybchenko
> > > <arybche...@solarflare.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:42 PM Viacheslav Ovsiienko
> > > <viachesl...@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The DPDK datapath in the transmit direction is very flexible.
> > > > An application can build the multi-segment packet and manages almost
> > > > all data aspects - the memory pools where segments are allocated from,
> > > > the segment lengths, the memory attributes like external buffers,
> > > > registered for DMA, etc.
> > > >
> >
> > [..snip..]
> >
> > > > For example, let's suppose we configured the Rx queue with the
> > > > following segments:
> > > > seg0 - pool0, len0=14B, off0=2
> > > > seg1 - pool1, len1=20B, off1=128B
> > > > seg2 - pool2, len2=20B, off2=0B
> > > > seg3 - pool3, len3=512B, off3=0B
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for chime in late. This API lookout looks good to me.
> > > But, I am wondering how the application can know the capability or
> > > "limits" of
> > > struct rte_eth_rxseg structure for the specific PMD. The other descriptor
> > > limit,
> > > it's being exposed with struct rte_eth_dev_info::rx_desc_lim; If PMD can
> > > support a specific pattern rather than returning the blanket error, the
> > > application should know the limit.
> > > IMO, it is better to add
> > > struct rte_eth_rxseg *rxsegs;
> > > unint16_t nb_max_rxsegs
> > > in rte_eth_dev_info structure to express the capablity.
> > > Where the en and offset can define the max offset.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Moreover, there might be implied a lot of various limitations - offsets
> > might be not supported at all or
> > have some requirements for alignment, the similar requirements might be
> > applied to segment size
> > (say, ask for some granularity). Currently it is not obvious how to report
> > all nuances, and it is supposed
> > the limitations of this kind must be documented in PMD chapter. As for mlx5
> > - it has no special
> > limitations besides common requirements to the regular segments.
>
> Reporting the limitation in the documentation will not help for the
> generic applications.
>
> >
> > One more point - the split feature might be considered as just one of
> > possible cases of using
> > these segment descriptions, other features might impose other (unknown for
> > now) limitations.
Also , I agree that w will have multiple use cases with segment descriptors.
In order to make it future proof on the API definion is better to have
from:
struct rte_eth_rxseg {
struct rte_mempool *mp; /**< Memory pool to allocate segment from. */
uint16_t length; /**< Segment data length, configures split point. */
uint16_t offset; /**< Data offset from beginning of mbuf data buffer. */
uint32_t reserved; /**< Reserved field. */
};
something lime below:
struct rte_eth_rxseg {
enum rte_eth_rxseg_mode mode ;
union {
struct rte_eth_rxseg_mode xxx {
struct rte_mempool *mp; /**< Memory pool
to allocate segment from. */
uint16_t length; /**< Segment data
length, configures split point. */
uint16_t offset; /**< Data offset from
beginning of mbuf data buffer. */
uint32_t reserved; /**< Reserved field. */
}
}
Another mode, Marvell PMD has it(I believe Intel also) i.e
When we say:
seg0 - pool0, len0=2000B, off0=0
seg1 - pool1, len1=2001B, off1=0
packet size up to, 2000B goes to pool 0 and if is >=2001 goes to pool1.
I think, it is better to have mode param in rte_eth_rxseg for avoiding
ABI changes.(Just like clean rte_flow APIs)
> > If we see some of the features of such kind or other PMDs adopts the split
> > feature - we'll try to find
> > the common root and consider the way how to report it.
>
> My only concern with that approach will be ABI break again if
> something needs to exposed over rte_eth_dev_info().
> IMO, if we featured needs to completed only when its capabilities are
> exposed in a programmatic manner.
> As of mlx5, if there not limitation then info
> rte_eth_dev_info::rxsegs[x].len, offset etc as UINT16_MAX so
> that application is aware of the state.
>
> >
> > With best regards, Slava
> >
