> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 11:02 PM
> To: Hanumanth Reddy Pothula <hpoth...@marvell.com>; Aman Singh
> <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Yuying Zhang <yuying.zh...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru;
> tho...@monjalon.net; yux.ji...@intel.com; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> <jer...@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram
> <ndabilpu...@marvell.com>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v6 1/1] app/testpmd: add valid check to verify
> multi mempool feature
>
> External Email
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 11/21/2022 2:33 PM, Hanumanth Pothula wrote:
> > Validate ethdev parameter 'max_rx_mempools' to know whether device
> > supports multi-mempool feature or not.
> >
>
> Validation 'max_rx_mempools' is not main purpose of this patch, I would
> move below paragraph up.
>
> > Also, add new testpmd command line argument, multi-mempool, to
> control
> > multi-mempool feature. By default its disabled.
> >
> > Bugzilla ID: 1128
> > Fixes: 4f04edcda769 ("app/testpmd: support multiple mbuf pools per Rx
> > queue")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hanumanth Pothula <hpoth...@marvell.com>
> >
> > ---
> > v6:
> > - Updated run_app.rst file with multi-mempool argument.
> > - defined and populated multi_mempool at related arguments.
> > - invoking rte_eth_dev_info_get() withing multi-mempool condition
> > v5:
> > - Added testpmd argument to enable multi-mempool feature.
> > - Simplified logic to distinguish between multi-mempool,
> > multi-segment and single pool/segment.
> > v4:
> > - updated if condition.
> > v3:
> > - Simplified conditional check.
> > - Corrected spell, whether.
> > v2:
> > - Rebased on tip of next-net/main.
> > ---
> > app/test-pmd/parameters.c | 4 ++
> > app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++----------
> > app/test-pmd/testpmd.h | 1 +
> > doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/run_app.rst | 4 ++
> > 4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/parameters.c b/app/test-pmd/parameters.c
> > index aed4cdcb84..d0f7b2f11d 100644
> > --- a/app/test-pmd/parameters.c
> > +++ b/app/test-pmd/parameters.c
> > @@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ usage(char* progname)
> > printf(" --rxhdrs=eth[,ipv4]*: set RX segment protocol to split.\n");
> > printf(" --txpkts=X[,Y]*: set TX segment sizes"
> > " or total packet length.\n");
> > + printf(" --multi-mempool: enable multi-mempool support\n");
>
> Indentation is wrong, one space is missing.
>
> Can you also update the '--mbuf-size=' definition, it has:
> " ... extra memory pools will be created for allocating mbufs to receive
> packets with buffer splitting features.", Now it is for both "buffer splitting
> and multi Rx mempool features."
> Even it can be possible to reference to new argument.
Sure, will update.
>
> > printf(" --txonly-multi-flow: generate multiple flows in txonly
> mode\n");
> > printf(" --tx-ip=src,dst: IP addresses in Tx-only mode\n");
> > printf(" --tx-udp=src[,dst]: UDP ports in Tx-only mode\n"); @@
> > -669,6 +670,7 @@ launch_args_parse(int argc, char** argv)
> > { "rxpkts", 1, 0, 0 },
> > { "rxhdrs", 1, 0, 0 },
> > { "txpkts", 1, 0, 0 },
> > + { "multi-mempool", 0, 0, 0 },
>
> Thinking twice, I am not sure about the 'multi-mempool' name, because
> 'mbuf-size' already cause to create multiple mempool, 'multi-mempool'
> can be confusing.
> As ethdev variable name is 'max_rx_mempools', what do you think to use
> 'multi-rx-mempools' here as argument?
Yes, 'multi-rx-mempools' looks clean.
>
> > { "txonly-multi-flow", 0, 0, 0 },
> > { "rxq-share", 2, 0, 0 },
> > { "eth-link-speed", 1, 0, 0 },
> > @@ -1295,6 +1297,8 @@ launch_args_parse(int argc, char** argv)
> > else
> > rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "bad
> txpkts\n");
> > }
> > + if (!strcmp(lgopts[opt_idx].name, "multi-
> mempool"))
> > + multi_mempool = 1;
> > if (!strcmp(lgopts[opt_idx].name, "txonly-multi-
> flow"))
> > txonly_multi_flow = 1;
> > if (!strcmp(lgopts[opt_idx].name, "rxq-share")) { diff
> --git
> > a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
> > 4e25f77c6a..0bf2e4bd0d 100644
> > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > @@ -245,6 +245,7 @@ uint32_t max_rx_pkt_len;
> > */
> > uint16_t rx_pkt_seg_lengths[MAX_SEGS_BUFFER_SPLIT];
> > uint8_t rx_pkt_nb_segs; /**< Number of segments to split */
> > +uint8_t multi_mempool; /**< Enables multi-mempool feature */
> > uint16_t rx_pkt_seg_offsets[MAX_SEGS_BUFFER_SPLIT];
> > uint8_t rx_pkt_nb_offs; /**< Number of specified offsets */
> > uint32_t rx_pkt_hdr_protos[MAX_SEGS_BUFFER_SPLIT];
> > @@ -258,6 +259,8 @@ uint16_t
> tx_pkt_seg_lengths[RTE_MAX_SEGS_PER_PKT]
> > = { }; uint8_t tx_pkt_nb_segs = 1; /**< Number of segments in
> > TXONLY packets */
> >
> > +
> > +
>
> Unintendend change.
Ack
>
> > enum tx_pkt_split tx_pkt_split = TX_PKT_SPLIT_OFF; /**< Split policy
> > for packets to TX. */
> >
> > @@ -2659,24 +2662,9 @@ rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t
> rx_queue_id,
> > uint32_t prev_hdrs = 0;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - /* Verify Rx queue configuration is single pool and segment or
> > - * multiple pool/segment.
> > - * @see rte_eth_rxconf::rx_mempools
> > - * @see rte_eth_rxconf::rx_seg
> > - */
> > - if (!(mbuf_data_size_n > 1) && !(rx_pkt_nb_segs > 1 ||
> > - ((rx_conf->offloads & RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT) !=
> 0))) {
> > - /* Single pool/segment configuration */
> > - rx_conf->rx_seg = NULL;
> > - rx_conf->rx_nseg = 0;
> > - ret = rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(port_id, rx_queue_id,
> > - nb_rx_desc, socket_id,
> > - rx_conf, mp);
> > - goto exit;
> > - }
> >
> > - if (rx_pkt_nb_segs > 1 ||
> > - rx_conf->offloads & RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT) {
> > + if ((rx_pkt_nb_segs > 1) &&
> > + (rx_conf->offloads & RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT)) {
> > /* multi-segment configuration */
> > for (i = 0; i < rx_pkt_nb_segs; i++) {
> > struct rte_eth_rxseg_split *rx_seg =
> &rx_useg[i].split; @@
> > -2701,22 +2689,50 @@ rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t
> rx_queue_id,
> > }
> > rx_conf->rx_nseg = rx_pkt_nb_segs;
> > rx_conf->rx_seg = rx_useg;
> > - } else {
> > + rx_conf->rx_mempools = NULL;
> > + rx_conf->rx_nmempool = 0;
> > + ret = rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(port_id, rx_queue_id,
> nb_rx_desc,
> > + socket_id, rx_conf, NULL);
> > + rx_conf->rx_seg = NULL;
> > + rx_conf->rx_nseg = 0;
> > + } else if (multi_mempool == 1) {
> > /* multi-pool configuration */
> > + struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
> > +
> > + if (mbuf_data_size_n <= 1) {
> > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "invalid number of mempools
> %u",
> > + mbuf_data_size_n);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + ret = rte_eth_dev_info_get(port_id, &dev_info);
> > + if (ret != 0)
> > + return ret;
> > + if (dev_info.max_rx_mempools == 0) {
> > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "device doesn't support
> requested multi-mempool configuration");
> > + return -ENOTSUP;
> > + }
> > for (i = 0; i < mbuf_data_size_n; i++) {
> > mpx = mbuf_pool_find(socket_id, i);
> > rx_mempool[i] = mpx ? mpx : mp;
> > }
> > rx_conf->rx_mempools = rx_mempool;
> > rx_conf->rx_nmempool = mbuf_data_size_n;
> > - }
> > - ret = rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(port_id, rx_queue_id, nb_rx_desc,
> > + rx_conf->rx_seg = NULL;
> > + rx_conf->rx_nseg = 0;
> > + ret = rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(port_id, rx_queue_id,
> nb_rx_desc,
> > socket_id, rx_conf, NULL);
> > - rx_conf->rx_seg = NULL;
> > - rx_conf->rx_nseg = 0;
> > - rx_conf->rx_mempools = NULL;
> > - rx_conf->rx_nmempool = 0;
> > -exit:
> > + rx_conf->rx_mempools = NULL;
> > + rx_conf->rx_nmempool = 0;
> > + } else {
> > + /* Single pool/segment configuration */
> > + rx_conf->rx_seg = NULL;
> > + rx_conf->rx_nseg = 0;
> > + rx_conf->rx_mempools = NULL;
> > + rx_conf->rx_nmempool = 0;
> > + ret = rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(port_id, rx_queue_id,
> nb_rx_desc,
> > + socket_id, rx_conf, mp);
> > + }
> > +
>
> Technically execution can reach to this point without taking any of the
> braches above, in that case there should be an error here instead of silently
> continue.
>
> I think either there should be a check here, not sure how to do, or single
> mempool can be the default setup out of the 'else' block. What do you
> think?
>
Yes, default case(final else) is going to be single pool/segment. I think there
is no need of error return.
This function(rx_queue_setup()) returns return of rte_eth_rx_queue_setup().
> > ports[port_id].rxq[rx_queue_id].state = rx_conf->rx_deferred_start
> ?
> >
> RTE_ETH_QUEUE_STATE_STOPPED :
> >
> RTE_ETH_QUEUE_STATE_STARTED;
> > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h index
> > aaf69c349a..e4f9b142c9 100644
> > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h
> > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h
> > @@ -589,6 +589,7 @@ extern uint32_t max_rx_pkt_len; extern
> uint32_t
> > rx_pkt_hdr_protos[MAX_SEGS_BUFFER_SPLIT];
> > extern uint16_t rx_pkt_seg_lengths[MAX_SEGS_BUFFER_SPLIT];
> > extern uint8_t rx_pkt_nb_segs; /**< Number of segments to split */
> > +extern uint8_t multi_mempool; /**< Enables multi-mempool feature.
> */
> > extern uint16_t rx_pkt_seg_offsets[MAX_SEGS_BUFFER_SPLIT];
> > extern uint8_t rx_pkt_nb_offs; /**< Number of specified offsets */
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/run_app.rst
> > b/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/run_app.rst
> > index 610e442924..329570e721 100644
> > --- a/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/run_app.rst
> > +++ b/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/run_app.rst
> > @@ -365,6 +365,10 @@ The command line options are:
> > Set TX segment sizes or total packet length. Valid for ``tx-only``
> > and ``flowgen`` forwarding modes.
> >
> > +* ``--multi-mempool``
> > +
> > + Enable multi-mempool, multiple mbuf pools per Rx queue, support.
> > +
> > * ``--txonly-multi-flow``
> >
> > Generate multiple flows in txonly mode.
