On 6/9/21 12:11 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2021/6/8 17:49, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> "for bonding" is redundant in the summary since it is already
>>> "net/bonding"
>>>
>>> On 4/23/21 12:46 PM, Chengchang Tang wrote:
>>>> Currently, the TX offloading of the bonding device will not take effect by
>>>
>>> TX -> Tx
>>>
>>>> using dev_configure. Because the related configuration will not be
>>>> delivered to the slave devices in this way.
>>>
>>> I think it is a major problem that Tx offloads are actually
>>> ignored. It should be a patches with "Fixes:" which addresses
>>> it.
>>>
>>>> The Tx offloading capability of the bonding device is the intersection of
>>>> the capability of all slave devices. Based on this, the following functions
>>>> are added to the bonding driver:
>>>> 1. If a Tx offloading is within the capability of the bonding device (i.e.
>>>> all the slave devices support this Tx offloading), the enabling status of
>>>> the offloading of all slave devices depends on the configuration of the
>>>> bonding device.
>>>>
>>>> 2. For the Tx offloading that is not within the Tx offloading capability
>>>> of the bonding device, the enabling status of the offloading on the slave
>>>> devices is irrelevant to the bonding device configuration. And it depends
>>>> on the original configuration of the slave devices.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengch...@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>>>> index 84af348..9922657 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>>>> @@ -1712,6 +1712,8 @@ slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev *bonded_eth_dev,
>>>> struct rte_flow_error flow_error;
>>>>
>>>> struct bond_dev_private *internals = bonded_eth_dev->data->dev_private;
>>>> + uint64_t tx_offload_cap = internals->tx_offload_capa;
>>>> + uint64_t tx_offload;
>>>>
>>>> /* Stop slave */
>>>> errval = rte_eth_dev_stop(slave_eth_dev->data->port_id);
>>>> @@ -1759,6 +1761,17 @@ slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev *bonded_eth_dev,
>>>> slave_eth_dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads &=
>>>> ~DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME;
>>>>
>>>> + while (tx_offload_cap != 0) {
>>>> + tx_offload = 1ULL << __builtin_ctzll(tx_offload_cap);
>>>> + if (bonded_eth_dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads & tx_offload)
>>>> + slave_eth_dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads |=
>>>> + tx_offload;
>>>> + else
>>>> + slave_eth_dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads &=
>>>> + ~tx_offload;
>>>> + tx_offload_cap &= ~tx_offload;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Frankly speaking I don't understand why it is that complicated.
>>> ethdev rejects of unsupported Tx offloads. So, can't we simply:
>>> slave_eth_dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads =
>>> bonded_eth_dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads;
>>>
>>
>> Using such a complicated method is to increase the flexibility of the slave
>> devices,
>> allowing the Tx offloading of the slave devices to be incompletely
>> consistent with
>> the bond device. If some offloading can be turned on without bond device
>> awareness,
>> they can be retained in this case.
>
>
> Not sure how that can that happen...
+1
@Chengchang could you provide an example how it could happen.
> From my understanding tx_offload for bond device has to be intersection of
> tx_offloads
> of all slaves, no? Otherwise bond device might be misconfigured.
> Anyway for that code snippet above, wouldn't the same be achived by:
> slave_eth_dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads &= internals->tx_offload_capa &
> bonded_eth_dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads;
> ?
