-----Original Message-----
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 11:06 PM
To: He, ShiyangX <shiyangx...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
Cc: Zhou, YidingX <yidingx.z...@intel.com>; sta...@dpdk.org; Zhang,
Yuying <yuying.zh...@intel.com>; Singh, Aman Deep
<aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Burakov, Anatoly
<anatoly.bura...@intel.com>; Matan Azrad <ma...@nvidia.com>; Dmitry
Kozlyuk <dmitry.kozl...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] app/testpmd: fix secondary process not
forwarding
On 2/23/2023 2:41 PM, Shiyang He wrote:
Under multi-process scenario, the secondary process gets queue state
from the wrong location (the global variable 'ports'). Therefore,
the secondary process can not forward since "stream_init" is not called.
This commit fixes the issue by calling 'rte_eth_rx/tx_queue_info_get'
to get queue state from shared memory.
Fixes: 3c4426db54fc ("app/testpmd: do not poll stopped queues")
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Shiyang He <shiyangx...@intel.com>
Acked-by: Yuying Zhang <yuying.zh...@intel.com>
v3: Add return value description
---
app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 45
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
0c14325b8d..a050472aea 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
@@ -2418,9 +2418,50 @@ start_packet_forwarding(int with_tx_first)
if (!pkt_fwd_shared_rxq_check())
return;
- if (stream_init != NULL)
- for (i = 0; i < cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_streams; i++)
+ if (stream_init != NULL) {
+ for (i = 0; i < cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_streams; i++) {
+ if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY)
{
+ struct fwd_stream *fs = fwd_streams[i];
+ struct rte_eth_rxq_info rx_qinfo;
+ struct rte_eth_txq_info tx_qinfo;
+ int32_t rc;
+ rc = rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get(fs->rx_port,
+ fs->rx_queue, &rx_qinfo);
+ if (rc == 0) {
+ ports[fs->rx_port].rxq[fs-
rx_queue].state =
+ rx_qinfo.queue_state;
+ } else if (rc == -ENOTSUP) {
+ /* Set the rxq state to
RTE_ETH_QUEUE_STATE_STARTED
+ * to ensure that the PMDs do not
implement
+ * rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get can
forward.
+ */
+ ports[fs->rx_port].rxq[fs-
rx_queue].state =
+
RTE_ETH_QUEUE_STATE_STARTED;
+ } else {
+ TESTPMD_LOG(WARNING,
+ "Failed to get rx queue
info\n");
+ }
+
+ rc = rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get(fs->tx_port,
+ fs->tx_queue, &tx_qinfo);
+ if (rc == 0) {
+ ports[fs->tx_port].txq[fs-
tx_queue].state =
+ tx_qinfo.queue_state;
+ } else if (rc == -ENOTSUP) {
+ /* Set the txq state to
RTE_ETH_QUEUE_STATE_STARTED
+ * to ensure that the PMDs do not
implement
+ * rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get can
forward.
+ */
+ ports[fs->tx_port].txq[fs-
tx_queue].state =
+
RTE_ETH_QUEUE_STATE_STARTED;
+ } else {
+ TESTPMD_LOG(WARNING,
+ "Failed to get tx queue
info\n");
+ }
+ }
stream_init(fwd_streams[i]);
+ }
+ }
Testpmd duplicates some dpdk/ethdev state/config in application
level, and this can bite in multiple cases, as it is happening here.
I am not sure if this was a design decision, but I think instead of
testpmd storing ethdev related state/config in application level, it
should store only application level state/config, and when ethdev
related state/config is required app should get it directly from ethdev.
It may be too late already for testpmd, there is a mixed usage, but I
am for preferring this approach when there is an opportunity.
For above issue, why queue state needs to be stored in application level
