On 11/21/2022 5:45 PM, Hanumanth Reddy Pothula wrote:
>
>
>> -----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().
>
ack
>>> 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.
>
