On 6/10/21 10:32 AM, Chengchang Tang wrote:
On 2021/6/9 17:35, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
On 6/9/21 9:42 AM, Chengchang Tang wrote:
Hi, Andrew and Ferruh
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:
To use the HW offloads capability (e.g. checksum and TSO) in the Tx
direction, the upper-layer users need to call rte_eth_dev_prepare to do
some adjustment to the packets before sending them (e.g. processing
pseudo headers when Tx checksum offoad enabled). But, the tx_prepare
callback of the bond driver is not implemented. Therefore, related
offloads can not be used unless the upper layer users process the packet
properly in their own application. But it is bad for the
transplantability.
However, it is difficult to design the tx_prepare callback for bonding
driver. Because when a bonded device sends packets, the bonded device
allocates the packets to different slave devices based on the real-time
link status and bonding mode. That is, it is very difficult for the
bonding device to determine which slave device's prepare function should
be invoked. In addition, if the link status changes after the packets are
prepared, the packets may fail to be sent because packets allocation may
change.
So, in this patch, the tx_prepare callback of bonding driver is not
implemented. Instead, the rte_eth_dev_tx_prepare() will be called for
all the fast path packet in mode 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6. In this way, all
tx_offloads can be processed correctly for all NIC devices in these modes.
If tx_prepare is not required in some cases, then slave PMDs tx_prepare
pointer should be NULL and rte_eth_tx_prepare() will be just a NOOP.
In these cases, the impact on performance will be very limited. It is
the responsibility of the slave PMDs to decide when the real tx_prepare
needs to be used. The information from dev_config/queue_setup is
sufficient for them to make these decisions.
Note:
The rte_eth_tx_prepare is not added to bond mode 3(Broadcast). This is
because in broadcast mode, a packet needs to be sent by all slave ports.
Different PMDs process the packets differently in tx_prepare. As a result,
the sent packet may be incorrect.
Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengch...@huawei.com>
---
drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond.h | 1 -
drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond.h
b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond.h
index 874aa91..1e6cc6d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond.h
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond.h
@@ -343,7 +343,6 @@ rte_eth_bond_link_up_prop_delay_set(uint16_t bonded_port_id,
int
rte_eth_bond_link_up_prop_delay_get(uint16_t bonded_port_id);
-
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
index 2e9cea5..84af348 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
@@ -606,8 +606,14 @@ bond_ethdev_tx_burst_round_robin(void *queue, struct
rte_mbuf **bufs,
/* Send packet burst on each slave device */
for (i = 0; i < num_of_slaves; i++) {
if (slave_nb_pkts[i] > 0) {
+ int nb_prep_pkts;
+
+ nb_prep_pkts = rte_eth_tx_prepare(slaves[i],
+ bd_tx_q->queue_id, slave_bufs[i],
+ slave_nb_pkts[i]);
+
Shouldn't it be called iff queue Tx offloads are not zero?
It will allow to decrease performance degradation if no
Tx offloads are enabled. Same in all cases below.
Regarding this point, it has been discussed in the previous RFC:
https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/47f907cf-3933-1de9-9c45-6734b912e...@huawei.com/
According to the TX_OFFLOAD status of the current device, PMDs can determine
whether tx_prepare is currently needed. If it is not needed, set pkt_tx_prepare
to NULL, so that the actual tx_prepare processing will be skipped directly in
rte_eth_tx_prepare().
I still think that the following is right:
No Tx offloads at all => Tx prepare is not necessary
Am I wrong?
Let PMDs determine whether tx_prepare() need be done could reduce the
performance
loss in more scenarios. For example, some offload do not need a Tx prepare, and
PMDs
could set tx_prepare to NULL in this scenario. Even if rte_eth_tx_prepare() is
called，
it will not perform the tx_prepare callback, and then return. In this case,
there is
only one judgment logic. If we judge whether tx_offloads are not zero, one more
logical
judgment is added.
I'll wait for net/bonding maintainers decision here.
IMHO all above assumptions should be proven by performance measurements.
Of course, some PMDs currently do not optimize tx_prepare, which may have a
performance
impact. We hope to force them to optimize tx_prepare in this way, just like
they optimize
tx_burst. This makes it easier for users to use tx_prepare(), and no longer
need to
consider that using tx_prepare() will introduce unnecessary performance
degradation.
IMHO tx_prepare() should be extended to all scenarios for use, and the impact on
performance should be optimized by PMDs. Let the application consider when it
should be
used and when it should not be used, in many cases it will not be used and then
introduced
some problem.
num_tx_slave = rte_eth_tx_burst(slaves[i],
bd_tx_q->queue_id,
- slave_bufs[i], slave_nb_pkts[i]);
+ slave_bufs[i], nb_prep_pkts);
In fact it is a problem here and really big problems.
Tx prepare may fail and return less packets. Tx prepare
of some packet may always fail. If application tries to
send packets in a loop until success, it will be a
forever loop here. Since application calls Tx burst,
it is 100% legal behaviour of the function to return 0
if Tx ring is full. It is not an error indication.
However, in the case of Tx prepare it is an error
indication.
Should we change Tx burst description and enforce callers
to check for rte_errno? It sounds like a major change...
I agree that if the failure is caused by Tx ring full, it is a legal behaviour.
But what about the failure caused by other reasons? At present, it is possible
for some PMDs to fail during tx_burst due to other reasons. In this case,
repeated tries to send will also fail.
If so, packet should be simply dropped by Tx burst and Tx burst
should move on. If a packet cannot be transmitted, it must be
dropped (counted) and Tx burst should move to the next packet.
I'm not sure if all PMDs need to support the behavior of sending packets in a
loop until it succeeds. If not, I think the current problem can be reminded to
the user by adding a description to the bonding. If it is necessary, I think the
description of tx_burst should also add related instructions, so that the
developers
of PMDs can better understand how tx_burst should be designed, such as putting
all
hardware-related constraint checks into tx_prepare. And another prerequisite for
the above behavior is that the packets must be prepared (i.e. checked by
rte_eth_tx_prepare()). Otherwise, it may also fail to send. This means that we
have
to use rte_eth_tx_prepare() in more scenarios.
IMHO any PMD specific behaviour is a nightmare to application
developer and must be avoided. Ideally application should not
care if it is running on top of tap, virtio, failsafe or
bonding. It should talk to ethdev in terms of ethdev API that's
it. I know that net/bonding is designed that application should
know about it, but IMHO the places where it requires the
knowledge must be minimized to make applications more portable
across various PMDs/HW.
I think that the only sensible solution for above problem is
to skip a packet which prepare dislikes. count it as dropped
and try to prepare/transmit subsequent packets.
Agree, I will fix this in the next version.
It is an interesting effect of the Tx prepare just before
Tx burst inside bonding PMD. If Tx burst fails to send
something because ring is full, a number of packets will
be processed by Tx prepare again and again. I guess it is
unavoidable.
What's Ferruh's opinion on this?
[snip]
