Hi, I am seeing the same potential issue with failsafe device (drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c) where Rx port offloads are a clone of Rx queue offloads. Checking it...
Regards, Ophir > -----Original Message----- > From: Ophir Munk > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 7:18 PM > To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Pascal Mazon > <pascal.ma...@6wind.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Mordechay Haimovsky <mo...@mellanox.com>; Olga > Shern <ol...@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; > Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler > <shah...@mellanox.com> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] net/tap: remove queue specific offload support > > Hi Ferruh, > Patch https://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/38957/ was submitted. > Can you please review it? > Please add Suggest-by with your name. > > Regards, > Ophir > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ophir Munk > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 3:21 PM > > To: 'Ferruh Yigit' <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; 'Pascal Mazon' > > <pascal.ma...@6wind.com> > > Cc: 'dev@dpdk.org' <dev@dpdk.org>; Mordechay Haimovsky > > <mo...@mellanox.com>; Olga Shern <ol...@mellanox.com>; Thomas > Monjalon > > <tho...@monjalon.net>; Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@mellanox.com>; > Shahaf > > Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] net/tap: remove queue specific offload support > > > > Hi Ferruh, > > I started working on a patch. > > No need for your test example. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ophir Munk > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 3:00 PM > > > To: 'Ferruh Yigit' <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Pascal Mazon > > > <pascal.ma...@6wind.com> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Mordechay Haimovsky <mo...@mellanox.com>; Olga > > Shern > > > <ol...@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; > > Raslan > > > Darawsheh <rasl...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler > > <shah...@mellanox.com> > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] net/tap: remove queue specific offload > > > support > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 12:48 PM > > > > To: Ophir Munk <ophi...@mellanox.com>; Pascal Mazon > > > > <pascal.ma...@6wind.com> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Mordechay Haimovsky <mo...@mellanox.com>; > Olga > > > Shern > > > > <ol...@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; > > > Raslan > > > > Darawsheh <rasl...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler > > > <shah...@mellanox.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net/tap: remove queue specific offload > > > > support > > > > > > > > On 4/25/2018 10:18 AM, Ophir Munk wrote: > > > > > Hi Ferruh, > > > > > > > > > > I should have mentioned earlier that TAP does support queue > > > > > specific > > > > capabilities. > > > > > Please look in tap_queue_setup() and note that each TAP queue is > > > > > created > > > > with a distinct file descriptor (fd). > > > > > Then supporting an offload capability is just implementing it in SW > (e.g. > > > > calculating IP checksum). > > > > > > > > > > If the main assumption of this patch was that TAP does not > > > > > support queue > > > > specific offloads - then please consider this patch again. > > > > > > > > Yes that was the initial question, is tap supports queue specific > > > > offloads or not. Thanks for the answer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand there is no port specific capability supported by > TAP. > > > > > > > > If so verify functions are wrong, that was the error I got. > > > > > > Can you please specify the test you did what error you got? > > > If I fix something I want to verify what I am fixing. > > > > > > > It seems copy/paste of mlx one but the port_supp_offloads has > > > > different meaning there. > > > > > > > > > However, in order to support legacy applications, port > > > > > capabilities are > > > > usually reported as the OR operation between queue & port > capabilities. > > > > > TAP currently clones the queue capabilities to port capabilities. > > > > > We could > > > > optimize this cloning by always return queue capabilities when > > > > queried about queues or ports. In this case - > > > > tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() and > > > > tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa() could be removed. > > > > > > > > Instead of removing the functions I think you can keep them but > > > > return correct values, in this case return empty, this will make > > > > the exiting validation functions correct. > > > > > > > > Can you send a fix for that? > > > > If no fix sent, I suggest going with this patch to remove queue > > > > level offload support until it is fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please find more comments inline. > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com] > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:54 PM > > > > >> To: Pascal Mazon <pascal.ma...@6wind.com> > > > > >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; > > > > >> Mordechay Haimovsky <mo...@mellanox.com>; Ophir Munk > > > > <ophi...@mellanox.com> > > > > >> Subject: [PATCH v3] net/tap: remove queue specific offload > > > > >> support > > > > >> > > > > >> It is not clear if tap PMD supports queue specific offloads, > > > > >> removing the related code. > > > > >> > > > > >> Fixes: 95ae196ae10b ("net/tap: use new Rx offloads API") > > > > >> Fixes: 818fe14a9891 ("net/tap: use new Tx offloads API") > > > > >> Cc: mo...@mellanox.com > > > > >> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > > > >> --- > > > > >> Cc: Ophir Munk <ophi...@mellanox.com> > > > > >> > > > > >> v2: > > > > >> * rebased > > > > >> > > > > >> v3: > > > > >> * txq->csum restored, > > > > >> - ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE check removed since ethdev layer takes > > > > >> care of it > > > > >> - tx_conf != NULL check removed, this is internal api who calls > > > > >> this > is > > > > >> ethdev and it doesn't pass null tx_conf > > > > >> --- > > > > >> drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c | 102 > > > > >> +++++------------------------------------- > > > > >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-) > > > > >> > > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c > > > > >> b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c index ef33aace9..61b4b5df3 > > > > >> 100644 > > > > >> --- a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c > > > > >> +++ b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c > > > > >> @@ -278,31 +278,6 @@ tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa(void) > > > > >> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP; } > > > > >> > > > > >> -static uint64_t > > > > >> -tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa(void) > > > > >> -{ > > > > >> - return DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER | > > > > >> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | > > > > >> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | > > > > >> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM | > > > > >> - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP; > > > > >> -} > > > > >> - > > > > > > > > > > TAP PMD supports all of these RX queue specific offloads. I > > > > > suggest to > > > > leave this function in place. > > > > > > > > > >> -static bool > > > > >> -tap_rxq_are_offloads_valid(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint64_t > > > > >> offloads) - > > > > { > > > > >> - uint64_t port_offloads = dev->data- > >dev_conf.rxmode.offloads; > > > > >> - uint64_t queue_supp_offloads = > tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa(); > > > > >> - uint64_t port_supp_offloads = > tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa(); > > > > >> - > > > > >> - if ((offloads & (queue_supp_offloads | port_supp_offloads)) > != > > > > >> - offloads) > > > > >> - return false; > > > > >> - if ((port_offloads ^ offloads) & port_supp_offloads) > > > > >> - return false; > > > > >> - return true; > > > > >> -} > > > > >> - > > > > > > > > > > Putting aside the fact that queue offloads equals port offloads > > > > > (so could > > > > ignore "port_supp_offload" variable) - this function is essential > > > > to validate that the configured Rx offloads are supported by TAP. > > > > I suggest to leave this function in place. > > > > > Without it - testpmd falsely confirms non supported offloads. > > > > > For example before this patch: offloading "hw-vlan-filter" will > > > > > fail as > > > > expected: > > > > > > > > > > testpmd> port config all > > > > > testpmd> port config all hw-vlan-filter on port start all > > > > > Configuring Port 0 (socket 0) > > > > > PMD: net_tap0: 0x1209fc0: TX configured queues number: 1 > > > > > PMD: net_tap0: 0x1209fc0: RX configured queues number: 1 > > > > > PMD: 0x1209fc0: Rx queue offloads 0x120e don't match port > > > > > offloads 0x120e or supported offloads 0x300e Fail to configure > > > > > port 0 rx queues > > > > > > > > > > However, with this patch this configuration is falsely accepted. > > > > > > > > > >> /* Callback to handle the rx burst of packets to the correct > > > > >> interface > > > and > > > > >> * file descriptor(s) in a multi-queue setup. > > > > >> */ > > > > >> @@ -411,31 +386,6 @@ tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa(void) > > > > >> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM; } > > > > >> > > > > >> -static uint64_t > > > > >> -tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa(void) > > > > >> -{ > > > > >> - return DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MULTI_SEGS | > > > > >> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | > > > > >> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | > > > > >> - DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM; > > > > >> -} > > > > >> - > > > > > > > > > > TAP PMD supports all of these TX queue specific offloads. I > > > > > suggest to > > > > leave this function in place. > > > > > > > > > >> -static bool > > > > >> -tap_txq_are_offloads_valid(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint64_t > > > > >> offloads) - > > > > { > > > > >> - uint64_t port_offloads = dev->data- > >dev_conf.txmode.offloads; > > > > >> - uint64_t queue_supp_offloads = > tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa(); > > > > >> - uint64_t port_supp_offloads = > tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa(); > > > > >> - > > > > >> - if ((offloads & (queue_supp_offloads | port_supp_offloads)) > != > > > > >> - offloads) > > > > >> - return false; > > > > >> - /* Verify we have no conflict with port offloads */ > > > > >> - if ((port_offloads ^ offloads) & port_supp_offloads) > > > > >> - return false; > > > > >> - return true; > > > > >> -} > > > > >> - > > > > > > > > > > This function is essential to validate that the configured Tx > > > > > offloads are > > > > supported by TAP. > > > > > I suggest to leave this function in place. > > > > > > > > > >> static void > > > > >> tap_tx_offload(char *packet, uint64_t ol_flags, unsigned int l2_len, > > > > >> unsigned int l3_len) > > > > >> @@ -763,12 +713,10 @@ tap_dev_info(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, > > > > >> struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info) > > > > >> dev_info->max_tx_queues = RTE_PMD_TAP_MAX_QUEUES; > > > > >> dev_info->min_rx_bufsize = 0; > > > > >> dev_info->speed_capa = tap_dev_speed_capa(); > > > > >> - dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa = > > > > >> tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa(); > > > > >> - dev_info->rx_offload_capa = > tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() | > > > > >> - dev_info- > >rx_queue_offload_capa; > > > > >> - dev_info->tx_queue_offload_capa = > > > > >> tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa(); > > > > >> - dev_info->tx_offload_capa = > tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa() | > > > > >> - dev_info- > >tx_queue_offload_capa; > > > > >> + dev_info->rx_offload_capa = > > tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa(); > > > > >> + dev_info->tx_offload_capa = > > tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa(); > > > > >> + dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa = 0; > > > > >> + dev_info->tx_queue_offload_capa = 0; > > > > >> } > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Rx_queue_offloads_capa should be reported as before: > > > > > dev_info->tx_queue_offload_capa = > > tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa(); > > > > > Same for TX offloads. > > > > > > > > > > Port capabilities could return queue capabilities: > > > > > > > > > > Instead of: > > > > > > > > > > dev_info->rx_offload_capa = tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() | > > > > > dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa; > > > > > > > > > > We could return: > > > > > > > > > > dev_info->rx_offload_capa = dev_info->rx_queue_offload_capa; > > > > > > > > > > The same argument is valid for Tx as well. > > > > > > > > > >> static int > > > > >> @@ -1094,19 +1042,6 @@ tap_rx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev > > > *dev, > > > > >> return -1; > > > > >> } > > > > >> > > > > >> - /* Verify application offloads are valid for our port and > queue. */ > > > > >> - if (!tap_rxq_are_offloads_valid(dev, rx_conf->offloads)) { > > > > >> - rte_errno = ENOTSUP; > > > > >> - RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, > > > > >> - "%p: Rx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64 > > > > >> - " don't match port offloads 0x%" PRIx64 > > > > >> - " or supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64 "\n", > > > > >> - (void *)dev, rx_conf->offloads, > > > > >> - dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads, > > > > >> - (tap_rx_offload_get_port_capa() | > > > > >> - tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa())); > > > > >> - return -rte_errno; > > > > >> - } > > > > > > > > > > The tap_rxq_are_offloads_valid() call is essential. I suggest to > > > > > leave it in > > > > place. > > > > > The RTE_LOG could drop port references to become: > > > > > > > > > > RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, > > > > > "%p: Rx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64 > > > > > " don't match" > > > > > " supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64 "\n", > > > > > (void *)dev, rx_conf->offloads, > > > > > tap_rx_offload_get_queue_capa())); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> rxq->mp = mp; > > > > >> rxq->trigger_seen = 1; /* force initial burst */ > > > > >> rxq->in_port = dev->data->port_id; @@ -1175,29 +1110,12 > @@ > > > > >> tap_tx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev > > > > *dev, > > > > >> return -1; > > > > >> dev->data->tx_queues[tx_queue_id] = &internals- > >txq[tx_queue_id]; > > > > >> txq = dev->data->tx_queues[tx_queue_id]; > > > > >> - /* > > > > >> - * Don't verify port offloads for application which > > > > >> - * use the old API. > > > > >> - */ > > > > >> - if (tx_conf != NULL && > > > > >> - !!(tx_conf->txq_flags & ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE)) { > > > > >> - if (tap_txq_are_offloads_valid(dev, tx_conf- > >offloads)) { > > > > >> - txq->csum = !!(tx_conf->offloads & > > > > >> - > (DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | > > > > >> - > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | > > > > >> - > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM)); > > > > >> - } else { > > > > >> - rte_errno = ENOTSUP; > > > > >> - RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, > > > > >> - "%p: Tx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64 > > > > >> - " don't match port offloads 0x%" > PRIx64 > > > > >> - " or supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64, > > > > >> - (void *)dev, tx_conf->offloads, > > > > >> - dev->data- > >dev_conf.txmode.offloads, > > > > >> - tap_tx_offload_get_port_capa()); > > > > >> - return -rte_errno; > > > > >> - } > > > > >> - } > > > > >> + > > > > > > > > > > The tap_txq_are_offloads_valid() call is essential. I suggest to > > > > > leave it in > > > > place. > > > > > The RTE_LOG message could drop comparison between queue and > port > > > > capabilities: > > > > > > > > > > RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, > > > > > "%p: Tx queue offloads 0x%" PRIx64 > > > > > " don't match" > > > > > " supported offloads 0x%" PRIx64, > > > > > (void *)dev, tx_conf->offloads, > > > > > tap_tx_offload_get_queue_capa()); > > > > > > > > > >> + txq->csum = !!(tx_conf->offloads & > > > > >> + (DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM | > > > > >> + DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | > > > > >> + DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM)); > > > > >> + > > > > >> ret = tap_setup_queue(dev, internals, tx_queue_id, 0); > > > > >> if (ret == -1) > > > > >> return -1; > > > > >> -- > > > > >> 2.14.3 > > > > >
