Hi, Sorry to reply now, because I just got back from our National Day vacation.
>From the commit it seem confused about the dmadev and HW channel, Current one >dmadev is corresponding a HW channel if its a hardware device. So I suggest try not to mention HW channel, but the dmadev or DMA device. Suggest the tile of the commit: dmadev: support strict priority configuration On 2024/10/3 19:53, Vamsi Krishna wrote: > From: Vamsi Attunuru <vattun...@marvell.com> > > Some DMA controllers offer the ability to configure priority level > for the hardware command queues, allowing for the prioritization of Let align the queues to channels for the hardware DMA channels, > DMA command execution based on queue importance. based on channel importance. > > This patch introduces the necessary fields in the dmadev structures to > retrieve information about the hardware-supported priority levels and to > enable priority configuration from the application. This patch supports such strict priority configuration. If the dmadev supports, it should declared the capability flag RTE_DMA_CAPA_PRI_POLICY_SP, then application could enable strict priority configuration. > > Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru <vattun...@marvell.com> > Signed-off-by: Amit Prakash Shukla <amitpraka...@marvell.com> > --- > V4 changes: > * Rebased onto the latest > > V3 changes: > * Corrected patch title > > V2 changes: > * Reverted removed text from release_24_11.rst > > V1 changes: > * Added trace support > * Added new capability flag > > Deprecation notice: > https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20240730144612.2132848-1-amitpraka...@marvell.com/ > > * Assuming we do not anticipate any advanced scheduling schemes for dmadev > queues, > this patch is intended to support a strict priority scheme. > > doc/guides/rel_notes/release_24_11.rst | 8 ++++++++ > lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev_trace.h | 2 ++ > 4 files changed, 46 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_24_11.rst > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_24_11.rst > index e0a9aa55a1..9672d8c679 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_24_11.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_24_11.rst > @@ -67,6 +67,11 @@ New Features > > The new statistics are useful for debugging and profiling. > > +* **Added strict priority capability flag in dmadev.** > + > + Added new capability flag ``RTE_DMA_CAPA_PRI_POLICY_SP`` to check if the > + DMA device supports assigning fixed priority to its channels, allowing > + for better control over resource allocation and scheduling. Please refine: Add strict priority capability for dmadev. Added new capability flag ``RTE_DMA_CAPA_PRI_POLICY_SP`` to check if the DMA device supports assigned fixed priority, allowing for better control over resource allocation and scheduling. > > Removed Items > ------------- > @@ -112,6 +117,9 @@ ABI Changes > Also, make sure to start the actual text at the margin. > ======================================================= > > +* dmadev: Added ``nb_priorities`` field to ``rte_dma_info`` structure and > + ``priority`` field to ``rte_dma_conf`` structure to get device supported > + priority levels and configure required priority from the application. > > Known Issues > ------------ > diff --git a/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev.c b/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev.c > index 845727210f..3d9063dee3 100644 > --- a/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev.c > +++ b/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev.c > @@ -497,6 +497,21 @@ rte_dma_configure(int16_t dev_id, const struct > rte_dma_conf *dev_conf) > return -EINVAL; > } > > + if (dev_conf->priority && !(dev_info.dev_capa & > RTE_DMA_CAPA_PRI_POLICY_SP)) { > + RTE_DMA_LOG(ERR, "Device %d don't support prioritization", > dev_id); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + if (dev_info.nb_priorities == 1) { > + RTE_DMA_LOG(ERR, "Device %d must support more than 1 priority, > or else 0", dev_id); > + return -EINVAL; > + } Please consider other driver which don't set nb_priorities, then it will failed in the above branch. Suggest add this verify in rte_dma_info_get(), make sure that this field should be > 1 if it supported PRI_POLICY_SP. > + > + if (dev_info.nb_priorities && (dev_conf->priority >= > dev_info.nb_priorities)) { > + RTE_DMA_LOG(ERR, "Device %d configure invalid priority", > dev_id); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > if (*dev->dev_ops->dev_configure == NULL) > return -ENOTSUP; > ret = (*dev->dev_ops->dev_configure)(dev, dev_conf, > diff --git a/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev.h b/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev.h > index 5474a5281d..e5f730c327 100644 > --- a/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev.h > +++ b/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev.h > @@ -268,6 +268,16 @@ int16_t rte_dma_next_dev(int16_t start_dev_id); > #define RTE_DMA_CAPA_OPS_COPY_SG RTE_BIT64(33) > /** Support fill operation. */ > #define RTE_DMA_CAPA_OPS_FILL RTE_BIT64(34) > +/** Support strict prioritization at DMA HW channel level > + * > + * If device supports HW channel prioritization then application could > + * assign fixed priority to the DMA HW channel using 'priority' field in > + * struct rte_dma_conf. Number of supported priority levels will be known > + * from 'nb_priorities' field in struct rte_dma_info. > + * > + * DMA devices which support prioritization can advertise this capability. How about: Support strict priority scheduling. Application could assign fixed priority to the DMA device using 'priority' field in struct rte_dma_conf. Number of supported priority levels will be known from 'nb_priorities' field in struct rte_dma_info. > + */ > +#define RTE_DMA_CAPA_PRI_POLICY_SP RTE_BIT64(35) This capa is a control plane flag, so please add after RTE_DMA_CAPA_M2D_AUTO_FREE. > /**@}*/ > > /** > @@ -297,6 +307,10 @@ struct rte_dma_info { > int16_t numa_node; > /** Number of virtual DMA channel configured. */ > uint16_t nb_vchans; > + /** Number of priority levels (must be > 1), if supported by DMA HW > channel. > + * 0 otherwise. How about "Number of priority levels (must be > 1) if supported priority scheduling." A DMA HW channel was just one dmadev, suggest don't introduce it. > + */ > + uint16_t nb_priorities; > }; > > /** > @@ -332,6 +346,13 @@ struct rte_dma_conf { > * @see RTE_DMA_CAPA_SILENT > */ > bool enable_silent; > + /* The priority of the DMA HW channel. > + * This value cannot be greater than or equal to the field > 'nb_priorities' > + * of struct rte_dma_info which get from rte_dma_info_get(). > + * Among the values between '0' and 'nb_priorities - 1', lowest value > + * indicates higher priority and vice-versa. How about (you could retouch it. I'm not a native English speaker.): The priority of the DMA device. If the the DMA device don't support priority scheduling, this value should be zero. Otherwise, the value should lower than the field 'nb_priorities' of struct rte_dma_info which get from rte_dma_info_get(). And also lowest value indicates higher priority and vice-versa. > + */ > + uint16_t priority; > }; > > /** > diff --git a/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev_trace.h b/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev_trace.h > index e55c4c6091..be089c065c 100644 > --- a/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev_trace.h > +++ b/lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev_trace.h > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ RTE_TRACE_POINT( > rte_trace_point_emit_u16(dev_info->max_sges); > rte_trace_point_emit_i16(dev_info->numa_node); > rte_trace_point_emit_u16(dev_info->nb_vchans); > + rte_trace_point_emit_u16(dev_info->nb_priorities); > ) > > RTE_TRACE_POINT( > @@ -48,6 +49,7 @@ RTE_TRACE_POINT( > int enable_silent = (int)dev_conf->enable_silent; > rte_trace_point_emit_i16(dev_id); > rte_trace_point_emit_u16(dev_conf->nb_vchans); > + rte_trace_point_emit_u16(dev_conf->priority); > rte_trace_point_emit_int(enable_silent); > rte_trace_point_emit_int(ret); > ) Please also modify dma_capability_name and dmadev_handle_dev_info,
