Hi Zhe & Wenzhuo,
Please find my comments below.
BTW, for clarification - is that patch for 16.11?
I believe it's too late to introduce such significant change in 16.07.
Thanks
Konstantin
> Define lock mode for RX/TX queue. Because when resetting
> the device we want the resetting thread to get the lock
> of the RX/TX queue to make sure the RX/TX is stopped.
>
> Using next ABI macro for this ABI change as it has too
> much impact. 7 APIs and 1 global variable are impacted.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhe Tao <zhe.tao at intel.com>
> ---
> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 62
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> index 74e895f..4efb5e9 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> @@ -354,7 +354,12 @@ struct rte_eth_rxmode {
> jumbo_frame : 1, /**< Jumbo Frame Receipt enable. */
> hw_strip_crc : 1, /**< Enable CRC stripping by hardware. */
> enable_scatter : 1, /**< Enable scatter packets rx handler */
> +#ifndef RTE_NEXT_ABI
> enable_lro : 1; /**< Enable LRO */
> +#else
> + enable_lro : 1, /**< Enable LRO */
> + lock_mode : 1; /**< Using lock path */
> +#endif
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -634,11 +639,68 @@ struct rte_eth_txmode {
> /**< If set, reject sending out tagged pkts */
> hw_vlan_reject_untagged : 1,
> /**< If set, reject sending out untagged pkts */
> +#ifndef RTE_NEXT_ABI
> hw_vlan_insert_pvid : 1;
> /**< If set, enable port based VLAN insertion */
> +#else
> + hw_vlan_insert_pvid : 1,
> + /**< If set, enable port based VLAN insertion */
> + lock_mode : 1;
> + /**< If set, using lock path */
> +#endif
> };
>
> /**
> + * The macros for the RX/TX lock mode functions
> + */
> +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
> +#define RX_LOCK_FUNCTION(dev, func) \
> + (dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.lock_mode ? \
> + func ## _lock : func)
> +
> +#define TX_LOCK_FUNCTION(dev, func) \
> + (dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.lock_mode ? \
> + func ## _lock : func)
> +#else
> +#define RX_LOCK_FUNCTION(dev, func) func
> +
> +#define TX_LOCK_FUNCTION(dev, func) func
> +#endif
> +
> +/* Add the lock RX/TX function for VF reset */
> +#define GENERATE_RX_LOCK(func, nic) \
> +uint16_t func ## _lock(void *rx_queue, \
> + struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, \
> + uint16_t nb_pkts) \
> +{ \
> + struct nic ## _rx_queue *rxq = rx_queue; \
> + uint16_t nb_rx = 0; \
> + \
> + if (rte_spinlock_trylock(&rxq->rx_lock)) { \
> + nb_rx = func(rx_queue, rx_pkts, nb_pkts); \
> + rte_spinlock_unlock(&rxq->rx_lock); \
> + } \
> + \
> + return nb_rx; \
> +}
> +
> +#define GENERATE_TX_LOCK(func, nic) \
> +uint16_t func ## _lock(void *tx_queue, \
> + struct rte_mbuf **tx_pkts, \
> + uint16_t nb_pkts) \
> +{ \
> + struct nic ## _tx_queue *txq = tx_queue; \
> + uint16_t nb_tx = 0; \
> + \
> + if (rte_spinlock_trylock(&txq->tx_lock)) { \
> + nb_tx = func(tx_queue, tx_pkts, nb_pkts); \
> + rte_spinlock_unlock(&txq->tx_lock); \
> + } \
> + \
> + return nb_tx; \
> +}
1. As I said in off-line dicussiion, I think this locking could
(and I think better be) impelented completely on rte_ethdev layer.
So actual PMD code will be unaffected.
Again that avoids us to introduce _lock version of every RX/Tx function
in each PMD.
2. Again, as discussed offline, I think it is better to have an explicit
rte_eth_(rx|tx)_burst_lock(sync?) API, instead of add new fileds into
RX/TX config strcutures.
Would help to avoid any confusion, I think.
3. I thought the plan was to introduce a locking in all appropriate control
path
functions (dev_start/dev_stop etc.)
Without that locking version of RX/TX seems a bit useless.
Yes, I understand that you do use locking inside dev_reset, but I suppose
the plan was to have a generic solution, no?
Again, interrupt fire when user invokes dev_start/stop or so, so we still
need some synchronisation between them.
To be more specific, I thought about something like that:
static inline uint16_t
rte_eth_rx_burst_lock(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t queue_id,
struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, const uint16_t nb_pkts)
{
struct rte_eth_dev *dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_ETHDEV_DEBUG
RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, 0);
RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->rx_pkt_burst, 0);
if (queue_id >= dev->data->nb_rx_queues) {
RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Invalid RX queue_id=%d\n", queue_id);
return 0;
}
#endif
+ if (rte_spinlock_trylock(&dev->data->rx_queue_state[rx_queue_id].lock) == 0)
+ return 0;
+ else if (dev->data->rx_queue_state[rx_queue_id] ==
RTE_ETH_QUEUE_STATE_STOPPED)) {
+ rte_spinlock_unlock(&dev->data->rx_queue_state[rx_queue_id].unlock);
+ return 0;
+
nb_rx = (*dev->rx_pkt_burst)(dev->data->rx_queues[queue_id],
rx_pkts, nb_pkts);
+ rte_spinlock_unlock(&dev->data->rx_queue_state[rx_queue_id].unlock);
....
return nb_rx;
}
And inside queue_start:
int
rte_eth_dev_rx_queue_start(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t rx_queue_id)
{
struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -EINVAL);
dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
if (rx_queue_id >= dev->data->nb_rx_queues) {
RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Invalid RX queue_id=%d\n", rx_queue_id);
return -EINVAL;
}
RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->rx_queue_start, -ENOTSUP);
rte_spinlock_lock(&dev->data->rx_queue_state[rx_queue_id].lock)
if (dev->data->rx_queue_state[rx_queue_id] !=
RTE_ETH_QUEUE_STATE_STOPPED) {
RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Queue %" PRIu16" of device with port_id=%"
PRIu8
" already started\n",
rx_queue_id, port_id);
ret = -EINVAL 0;
} else
ret = dev->dev_ops->rx_queue_start(dev, rx_queue_id);
rte_spinlock_unlock(&dev->data->rx_queue_state[rx_queue_id].unlock);
return ret;
}
Then again, we don't need to do explicit locking inside dev_reset().
Does it make sense to you guys?
> +
> +/**
> * A structure used to configure an RX ring of an Ethernet port.
> */
> struct rte_eth_rxconf {
> --
> 2.1.4
