Hi Chuanyu,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuanyu Xue <chuanyu....@uconn.edu>
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 11:04 AM
> To: Su, Simei <simei...@intel.com>
> Cc: Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; chuanyu....@uconn.edu;
> dev@dpdk.org; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
> <wenzhuo...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/e1000: support launchtime feature
>
> Hi Simei,
> Thank you so much for your review.
>
> >>
> >> /* QAV Tx mode control register */
> >> #define E1000_I210_TQAVCTRL 0x3570
> >> +#define E1000_I210_LAUNCH_OS0 0x3578
> >
> >What does this register mean?
> >
>
> "LAUNCH_OS0" is defined as LaunchOffset register, which sets the base time
> for launchtime. Based on i210 datasheet V3.7 Sec 7.2.2.2.3, the actual launch
> time is computed as 32 * (LaunchOffset + LaunchTime). In this context, the
> register is used to set the LaunchOffset later as 0.
OK, got it. Thanks for your explanation.
>
> >>
> >> + if (igb_tx_timestamp_dynflag > 0) {
> >> + tqavctrl = E1000_READ_REG(hw, E1000_I210_TQAVCTRL);
> >> + tqavctrl |= E1000_TQAVCTRL_MODE;
> >> + tqavctrl |= E1000_TQAVCTRL_FETCH_ARB; /* Fetch the queue most
> >> empty, no Round Robin*/
> >> + tqavctrl |= E1000_TQAVCTRL_LAUNCH_TIMER_ENABLE; /* Enable
> >> launch time */
> >
> > In kernel driver, "E1000_TQAVCTRL_DATATRANTIM (BIT(9))" and
> > "E1000_TQAVCTRL_FETCHTIME_DELTA (0xFFFF << 16)" are set, does it have
> > some other intention here?
>
> "E1000_TQAVCTRL_DATATRANTIM" is same as
> "E1000_TQAVCTRL_LAUNCH_TIMER_ENABLE"
Yes, these two values are the same.
>
> "E1000_TQAVCTRL_FETCHTIME_DELTA" maximizes the data fetch time.
> If "E1000_TQAVCTRL_FETCH_ARB" is set, there is no need to set this field,
> because the arbitrary fetching prioritizes the most empty queue, regardless of
> the fetch time. (referring Sec 7.2.7.5)
>
> I have also tested aligning with the kernel driver settings using (0xFFFF <<
> 16)
> and omitting 'E1000_TQAVCTRL_FETCH_ARB', the launchtime feature also
> worked as expected. However, the arbitrary fetch mode seems more suitable
> as DPDK lacks an interface to set fetch delay, unlike in the kernel which can
> be
> configured (e.g., through 'Delta' in ETF Qdisc). Any suggestions here?
Yes, it doesn't have an interface to set delay in DPDK. I agree with your
approach.
>
> >> +static int
> >> +eth_igb_read_clock(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint64_t
> >> +*clock) {
> >> + uint64_t systime_cycles;
> >> + struct e1000_adapter *adapter = dev->data->dev_private;
> >> +
> >> + systime_cycles = igb_read_systime_cyclecounter(dev);
> >> + uint64_t ns = rte_timecounter_update(&adapter->systime_tc,
> >> systime_cycles);
> >
> >Do you also run "ptp timesync" when testing this launchtime feature?
> >
>
> I used `rte_eth_timesync_enable` function during the test. I am not familiar
> with the `ptp timesync` in DPDK. If you are referring to something else, could
> you please guide me on how to test it?
Do you use your own application or DPDK application to test this launchtime
feature,
for example, dpdk testpmd?
>
> >>
> >> +/* Macro to compensate latency in launch time offloading*/
> >> +#define E1000_I210_LT_LATENCY 0x41F9
> >
> >What does this value depend on?
> >
>
> Through my test, I observed a constant latency between the launchtime and
> the actual Tx time measured by the `rte_eth_timesync_read_tx_timestamp`
> function.
> I didn't find a description of this latency in the datasheet.
>
> In my test, the latency appears to be relative to the data rate, and
> independent
> from the packet size and throughput. The latency slightly changed in different
> experiments, but in each experiment, it remained constant for all the Tx
> packets.
OK, got it.
> I also tested this latency consistently on two different NICs (I210 GE-1T-X1,
> I210 X1-V2).
>
> Here are some measurement results (in ns):
>
> +-----------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> | Data Rate | Measurement 1 | Measurement 2 | Measurement 3 |
> | Measurement 4 | Measurement 5 |
> +-----------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> | 10M | 14400 | 14544 | 14384 |
> 14896 | 14336 |
> +-----------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> | 100M | 31016 | 31016 | 31000 |
> 31000 | 31048 |
> +-----------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> | 1G | 16880 | 16880 | 16880 | 16880
> | 16880 |
> +-----------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
>
> Any suggestions here? Is it supposed to be embedded directly here or left to
> the application level to compensate? I can fix it accordingly.
I think it can be put here directly just as you do.
Thanks,
Simei
>
> - Chuanyu
