On 11/28/2023 11:29 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote:
>
> 在 2023/11/28 18:09, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>> On 11/28/2023 1:21 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote:
>>> 在 2023/11/27 23:43, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>>> On 11/27/2023 1:12 PM, lihuisong (C) wrote:
>>>>> 在 2023/11/27 20:19, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>>>>> On 11/25/2023 1:47 AM, Huisong Li wrote:
>>>>>>> Add hash algorithm feature introduced by 23.11 and fix some RSS
>>>>>>> features
>>>>>>> description.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fixes: 34ff088cc241 ("ethdev: set and query RSS hash algorithm")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuis...@huawei.com>
>>>>>>> Acked-by: Chengwen Feng <fengcheng...@huawei.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> doc/guides/nics/features.rst | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst
>>>>>>> b/doc/guides/nics/features.rst
>>>>>>> index 1a1dc16c1e..0d38c5c525 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst
>>>>>>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features.rst
>>>>>>> @@ -277,10 +277,12 @@ RSS hash
>>>>>>> Supports RSS hashing on RX.
>>>>>>> * **[uses] user config**: ``dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode`` =
>>>>>>> ``RTE_ETH_MQ_RX_RSS_FLAG``.
>>>>>>> -* **[uses] user config**: ``dev_conf.rx_adv_conf.rss_conf``.
>>>>>>> +* **[uses] user config**: ``rss_conf.rss_hf``.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feature title is "RSS hash", it can be two things,
>>>>>> 1. "Receive Side Scaling" support
>>>>>> 2. Provide RSS hash to application
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When this document first prepared RSS hash value was always
>>>>>> provided to
>>>>>> the application when RSS enabled.
>>>>>> So intention with this feature was "Receive Side Scaling" support,
>>>>>> hence
>>>>>> 'RTE_ETH_MQ_RX_RSS_FLAG' added.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Later providing RSS has to the application separated as optimization,
>>>>>> 'RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH' & 'RTE_MBUF_F_RX_RSS_HASH' added for
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> support.
>>>>> What should I do for above two comments？
>>>>> To tell application how to use it?
>>>>>
>>>> Just tried to give some context.
>>> got it.
>>>>
>>>>>> As the intention of this feature is "Receive Side Scaling"
>>>>>> support, we
>>>>>> shouldn't reduce configuration struct to 'rss_conf.rss_hf'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead perhaps can expand to:
>>>>>> 'rte_eth_conf.rx_adv_conf.rss_conf', 'rte_eth_rss_conf'
>>>>> I just pick their common part.😁
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, will fix it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> * **[uses] rte_eth_rxconf,rte_eth_rxmode**:
>>>>>>> ``offloads:RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH``.
>>>>>>> * **[provides] rte_eth_dev_info**: ``flow_type_rss_offloads``.
>>>>>>> * **[provides] mbuf**: ``mbuf.ol_flags:RTE_MBUF_F_RX_RSS_HASH``,
>>>>>>> ``mbuf.rss``.
>>>>>>> +* **[related] API**: ``rte_eth_dev_configure``,
>>>>>>> ``rte_eth_dev_rss_hash_update``
>>>>>>> + ``rte_eth_dev_rss_hash_conf_get()``.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ack
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .. _nic_features_inner_rss:
>>>>>>> @@ -288,7 +290,7 @@ Supports RSS hashing on RX.
>>>>>>> Inner RSS
>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>> -Supports RX RSS hashing on Inner headers.
>>>>>>> +Supports RX RSS hashing on Inner headers by rte_flow API.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This should be clarified with details below, not sure if it
>>>>>> required to
>>>>>> limit description to rte_flow.
>>>>> But this block like rte_flow_action_rss is from rte_flow.
>>>>> And ethdev ops doesn't support inner RSS.
>>>>> So I think it is ok.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes it is supported by rte_flow, and '[uses]' information should
>>>> already
>>>> clarify it.
>>> Should we remove the 'rte_flow API' wrods I added in above description?
>>>
>> I think it can be removed.
> The latest version(V5, only three fix doc patch) has been sent out.
> Do we I need to send V6 for this?😂
>
Nope, no new version needed for this, I already acked the one with it,
but if there will be a new version this can be updated.
Thanks Huisong for improving the documentation.
>>
>>
>>>>>> And I guess similar confusion exist with the providing hash to user.
>>>>>> Need to check if rte_flow implementation puts hash to mbuf along with
>>>>>> doing the RSS, or if it checks 'RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH' offload,
>>>>>> and update below items accordingly.
>>>>> Do we need to tell user how to use it here?
>>>>> I feel this document is a little simple and main to list interface for
>>>>> user.
>>>>> In addition, it is better that the more detail about RSS should be
>>>>> presented in rte_flow features.
>>>>>
>>>> No, I am not suggesting to add more detail.
>>>>
>>>> My concern is 'RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH' information may not be
>>>> correct, ethdev APIs checks offload flags, but does rte_flow
>>>> implementation check it?
>>> As far as I know, It is possibly verified in PMD if have or required.
>>>> My suggestion is double check that piece of information and fix it if
>>>> required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> * **[uses] rte_flow_action_rss**: ``level``.
>>>>>>> * **[uses] rte_eth_rxconf,rte_eth_rxmode**:
>>>>>>> ``offloads:RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH``.
>>>>>>> @@ -303,9 +305,25 @@ RSS key update
>>>>>>> Supports configuration of Receive Side Scaling (RSS) hash
>>>>>>> computation. Updating
>>>>>>> Receive Side Scaling (RSS) hash key.
>>>>>>> -* **[implements] eth_dev_ops**: ``rss_hash_update``,
>>>>>>> ``rss_hash_conf_get``.
>>>>>>> +* **[implements] eth_dev_ops**: ``dev_configure``,
>>>>>>> ``rss_hash_update``, ``rss_hash_conf_get``.
>>>>>>> +* **[uses] user config**: ``rss_conf.rss_key``,
>>>>>>> ``rss_conf.rss_key_len``
>>>>>>> * **[provides] rte_eth_dev_info**: ``hash_key_size``.
>>>>>>> -* **[related] API**: ``rte_eth_dev_rss_hash_update()``,
>>>>>>> +* **[related] API**: ``rte_eth_dev_configure``,
>>>>>>> ``rte_eth_dev_rss_hash_update()``,
>>>>>>> + ``rte_eth_dev_rss_hash_conf_get()``.
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>> ack
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an inconsistency in the documentation but I think it is
>>>>>> good to
>>>>>> use '()' when documenting API, like: 'rte_eth_dev_configure()'
>>>>> +1 will fix it.
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +.. _nic_features_rss_hash_algo_update:
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +RSS hash algorithm update
>>>>>>> +-------------------------
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +Supports configuration of Receive Side Scaling (RSS) hash
>>>>>>> algorithm.
>>>>>>> Updating
>>>>>>> +RSS hash algorithm.
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +* **[implements] eth_dev_ops**: ``dev_configure``,
>>>>>>> ``rss_hash_update``, ``rss_hash_conf_get``.
>>>>>>> +* **[uses] user config**: ``rss_conf.algorithm``
>>>>>>> +* **[provides] rte_eth_dev_info**: ``rss_algo_capa``.
>>>>>>> +* **[related] API**: ``rte_eth_dev_configure``,
>>>>>>> ``rte_eth_dev_rss_hash_update()``,
>>>>>>> ``rte_eth_dev_rss_hash_conf_get()``.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This document describes features listed in the 'default.ini', so we
>>>>>> shouldn't have above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I don't think RSS hash algorithm update is a big enough
>>>>>> feature to
>>>>>> list in the feature list, perhaps it can be embedded in the RSS
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> block, what do you think?
>>>>> Yes it is not a bit feature.
>>>>> so put it to RSS hash, right?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes please.
>>>>
>>>> .
>> .
