> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 8:48 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the new > offloads API > > 04/09/2017 16:18, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > > 04/09/2017 15:25, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > Hi Shahaf, > > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > + * A conversion function from rxmode offloads API to rte_eth_rxq_conf > > > > > + * offloads API. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +static void > > > > > +rte_eth_convert_rxmode_offloads(struct rte_eth_rxmode *rxmode, > > > > > + struct rte_eth_rxq_conf *rxq_conf) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + if (rxmode->header_split == 1) > > > > > + rxq_conf->offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT; > > > > > + if (rxmode->hw_ip_checksum == 1) > > > > > + rxq_conf->offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM; > > > > > + if (rxmode->hw_vlan_filter == 1) > > > > > + rxq_conf->offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_FILTER; > > > > > > > > Thinking on it a bit more: > > > > VLAN_FILTER is definitely one per device, as it would affect VFs also. > > > > At least that's what we have for Intel devices (ixgbe, i40e) right now. > > > > For Intel devices VLAN_STRIP is also per device and > > > > will also be applied to all corresponding VFs. > > > > In fact, right now it is possible to query/change these 3 vlan offload > > > > flags on the fly > > > > (after dev_start) on port basis by rte_eth_dev_(get|set)_vlan_offload > > > > API. > > > > So, I think at least these 3 flags need to be remained on a port basis. > > > > > > I don't understand how it helps to be able to configure the same thing > > > in 2 places. > > > > Because some offloads are per device, another - per queue. > > Configuring on a device basis would allow most users to conjure all > > queues in the same manner by default. > > Those users who would need more fine-grained setup (per queue) > > will be able to overwrite it by rx_queue_setup(). > > Those users can set the same config for all queues. > > > > > I think you are just describing a limitation of these HW: some offloads > > > must be the same for all queues. > > > > As I said above - on some devices some offloads might also affect queues > > that belong to VFs (to another ports in DPDK words). > > You might never invoke rx_queue_setup() for these queues per your app. > > But you still want to enable this offload on that device.
I am ok with having per-port and per-queue offload configuration. My concern is that after that patch only per-queue offload configuration will remain. I think we need both. Konstantin > > You are advocating for per-port configuration API because > some settings must be the same on all the ports of your hardware? > So there is a big trouble. You don't need per-port settings, > but per-hw-device settings. > Or would you accept more fine-grained per-port settings? > If yes, you can accept even finer grained per-queues settings. > > > > > It does not prevent from configuring them in the per-queue setup. > > > > > > > In fact, why can't we have both per port and per queue RX offload: > > > > - dev_configure() will accept RX_OFFLOAD_* flags and apply them on a > > > > port basis. > > > > - rx_queue_setup() will also accept RX_OFFLOAD_* flags and apply them > > > > on a queue basis. > > > > - if particular RX_OFFLOAD flag for that device couldn't be setup on a > > > > queue basis - > > > > rx_queue_setup() will return an error. > > > > > > The queue setup can work while the value is the same for every queues. > > > > Ok, and how people would know that? > > That for device N offload X has to be the same for all queues, > > and for device M offload X can be differs for different queues. > > We can know the hardware limitations by filling this information > at PMD init. > > > Again, if we don't allow to enable/disable offloads for particular queue, > > why to bother with updating rx_queue_setup() API at all? > > I do not understand this question. > > > > > - rte_eth_rxq_info can be extended to provide information which > > > > RX_OFFLOADs > > > > can be configured on a per queue basis. > > > > > > Yes the PMD should advertise its limitations like being forced to > > > apply the same configuration to all its queues. > > > > Didn't get your last sentence. > > I agree that the hardware limitations must be written in an ethdev structure.
