Hi, Ferruh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 14:07
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas
> Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Wei Hu (Xavier)
> <huwei...@chinasoftinc.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; xavier.hu...@huawei.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove restriction on
> txpkts set
>
> On 11/27/2020 1:05 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 14:38
> >> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas
> >> Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Wei Hu (Xavier)
> >> <huwei...@chinasoftinc.com>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; xavier.hu...@huawei.com
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove
> >> restriction on txpkts set
> >>
> >> On 11/26/2020 7:24 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> >>> The bug:
> >>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbu
> >>> gs
> >>>
> >>
> .dpdk.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D584&data=04%7C01%7Cviacheslavo
> >> %40n
> >>>
> >>
> vidia.com%7Ce52ba5bbab184ac8592808d8920842c5%7C43083d15727340c1b7
> >> db39e
> >>>
> >>
> fd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637419911462011700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3
> >> d8eyJWIjo
> >>>
> >>
> iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000
> >> &
> >>>
> >>
> ;sdata=QBB67WqEjUHgwqHNjqx2VLdaTRMzMeodh%2B%2FVFsHByQg%3D&am
> >> p;reserved
> >>> =0
> >>>
> >>> Can we pass the nb_segs = 1 always?
> >>> One descriptor is minimal basic capability to send, it should be
> >>> always
> >> supported.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Slava,
> >>
> >> I didn't get your comment, can you please elaborate?
> >>
> > The --txpkts is rejected on testpmd startup due to port is not
> > configured yet and we can't find out how many descriptors are actually
> > configured in the Tx queues.
> >
> > Configuring Tx queues with zero descriptors seems to be meaningless,
> > it would disable a basic capability to send the packets. And we could
> > assume the single segment packet sending is always supported.
> >
> > If --txpkts sets only the size for the single segment we can assume
> > that the packets with only one segment is going to be sent, and we
> > could ignore the Tx queue descriptor number check for the case.
> >
>
> Overall I was OK to remove the check completely, even multi segment used it
> is very unlikely that number of segments will be more than descriptor size.
>
> But at least OK to ignore the check for single segment, also we can force
> '--txd'
> parameter provided to enable '--txpkts', like done before.
OK, I'll provide the patch taking both approaches on testpmd startup:
- if --txd is specified the check will be done against it, failed check for
non-configured port will be ignored
- if there is the only one segment specified in txpkts, failed check for
non-configured port will be ignored
With best regards, Slava
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> With best regards, Slava
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 16:07
> >>>> To: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Wei Hu
> >>>> (Xavier) <huwei...@chinasoftinc.com>
> >>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; xavier.hu...@huawei.com; Slava Ovsiienko
> >>>> <viachesl...@nvidia.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove
> >>>> restriction on txpkts set
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/24/2020 12:23 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/24/2020 10:27 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>>>> Is it OK to keep this regression?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ferruh, what do you suggest?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I confirm the '--txpkts' parameter is broken now, I suggest
> >>>>> submitting a defect for it and continue with the regression.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Slava,
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you please submit the Bugzilla defect?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> ferruh
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> We have alternative for the parameter, "set txpkts <len0[,len1]*>"
> >> command.
> >>>>> The parameter was only working when hardcoded '--txd=N' parameter is
> >>>>> provided, the command is more dynamic and works however queue size
> >>>>> is
> >>>> configured.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We can fix the '--txpkts' in next release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 23/11/2020 12:50, Slava Ovsiienko:
> >>>>>>> Hi, Wei
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It was found this patch rejects the --txpkts command line settings.
> >>>>>>> set_tx_pkt_segments() is called before device started and we have
> >>>>>>> failure chain:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> set_tx_pkt_segments()
> >>>>>>> nb_segs_is_invalid()
> >>>>>>> get_tx_ring_size ()
> >>>>>>> rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get()
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It causes --txpkts testpmd command line option is ignored.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> With best regards, Slava
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Wei Hu (Xavier)
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 15:47
> >>>>>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org
> >>>>>>>> Cc: xavier.hu...@huawei.com
> >>>>>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove
> >>>>>>>> restriction on txpkts set
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: Chengchang Tang <tangchengch...@huawei.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Currently, if nb_txd is not set, the txpkts is not allowed to be
> >>>>>>>> set because the nb_txd is used to avoid the numer of segments
> >>>>>>>> exceed the Tx ring size and the default value of nb_txd is 0. And
> >>>>>>>> there is a bug that nb_txd is the global configuration for Tx
> >>>>>>>> ring size and the ring size could be changed by some command per
> >> queue.
> >>>>>>>> So these valid check is unreliable and introduced unnecessary
> >>>>>>>> constraints.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This patch adds a valid check function to use the real Tx ring
> >>>>>>>> size to check the validity of txpkts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
> >>>>>>>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengch...@huawei.com>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.hu...@huawei.com>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>> v3 -> v4:
> >>>>>>>> add check 'rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get()' return value and
> >>>>>>>> if it is '-ENOSTUP' calculate the 'ring_size'.
> >>>>>>>> v3: initial version.
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>> app/test-pmd/config.c | 64
> >>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c index
> >>>>>>>> 6496d2f..8ebb927 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
> >>>>>>>> @@ -1893,6 +1893,38 @@ tx_queue_id_is_invalid(queueid_t
> txq_id)
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> static int
> >>>>>>>> +get_tx_ring_size(portid_t port_id, queueid_t txq_id, uint16_t
> >>>>>>>> +*ring_size) {
> >>>>>>>> + struct rte_port *port = &ports[port_id];
> >>>>>>>> + struct rte_eth_txq_info tx_qinfo;
> >>>>>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + ret = rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get(port_id, txq_id, &tx_qinfo);
> >>>>>>>> + if (ret == 0) {
> >>>>>>>> + *ring_size = tx_qinfo.nb_desc;
> >>>>>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + if (ret != -ENOTSUP)
> >>>>>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>>>> + * If the rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get is not support for this
> >>>>>>>> +PMD,
> >>>>>>>> + * ring_size stored in testpmd will be used for validity
> verification.
> >>>>>>>> + * When configure the txq by rte_eth_tx_queue_setup with
> >>>>>>>> nb_tx_desc
> >>>>>>>> + * being 0, it will use a default value provided by PMDs to
> >>>>>>>> +setup this
> >>>>>>>> + * txq. If the default value is 0, it will use the
> >>>>>>>> + * RTE_ETH_DEV_FALLBACK_TX_RINGSIZE to setup this txq.
> >>>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>>> + if (port->nb_tx_desc[txq_id])
> >>>>>>>> + *ring_size = port->nb_tx_desc[txq_id];
> >>>>>>>> + else if (port->dev_info.default_txportconf.ring_size)
> >>>>>>>> + *ring_size =
> >>>>>>>> +port->dev_info.default_txportconf.ring_size;
> >>>>>>>> + else
> >>>>>>>> + *ring_size = RTE_ETH_DEV_FALLBACK_TX_RINGSIZE;
> >>>>>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +static int
> >>>>>>>> rx_desc_id_is_invalid(uint16_t rxdesc_id) {
> >>>>>>>> if (rxdesc_id < nb_rxd)
> >>>>>>>> @@ -2986,17 +3018,41 @@ show_tx_pkt_segments(void)
> >>>>>>>> printf("Split packet: %s\n", split);
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +static bool
> >>>>>>>> +nb_segs_is_invalid(unsigned int nb_segs) {
> >>>>>>>> + uint16_t ring_size;
> >>>>>>>> + uint16_t queue_id;
> >>>>>>>> + uint16_t port_id;
> >>>>>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(port_id) {
> >>>>>>>> + for (queue_id = 0; queue_id < nb_txq; queue_id++) {
> >>>>>>>> + ret = get_tx_ring_size(port_id, queue_id,
> >>>>>>>> +&ring_size);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>>>>> + return true;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + if (ring_size < nb_segs) {
> >>>>>>>> + printf("nb segments per TX packets=%u >= "
> >>>>>>>> + "TX queue(%u) ring_size=%u - ignored\n",
> >>>>>>>> + nb_segs, queue_id, ring_size);
> >>>>>>>> + return true;
> >>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + return false;
> >>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> void
> >>>>>>>> set_tx_pkt_segments(unsigned *seg_lengths, unsigned nb_segs)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> uint16_t tx_pkt_len;
> >>>>>>>> unsigned i;
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - if (nb_segs >= (unsigned) nb_txd) {
> >>>>>>>> - printf("nb segments per TX packets=%u >= nb_txd=%u -
> >>>>>>>> ignored\n",
> >>>>>>>> - nb_segs, (unsigned int) nb_txd);
> >>>>>>>> + if (nb_segs_is_invalid(nb_segs))
> >>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>> - }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> /*
> >>>>>>>> * Check that each segment length is greater or equal than
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> 2.9.5
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >
