Thanks to Thomas, Ferruh and Zhang Qi for your feedback. I will rework v5 patch to follow your guidance.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Zhang, Qi Z > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:51 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Dai, Wei <wei....@intel.com>; > dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:19 PM > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> > > Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Dai, Wei > > <wei....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads > > > > 26/04/2018 09:59, Zhang, Qi Z: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Yigit, Ferruh > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 1:05 AM > > > > To: Dai, Wei <wei....@intel.com>; tho...@monjalon.net; Zhang, Qi Z > > > > <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ethdev: check Rx/Tx offloads > > > > > > > > On 4/25/2018 12:50 PM, Wei Dai wrote: > > > > > This patch check if a requested offloading is supported in the > > > > > device capability. > > > > > Any offloading is disabled by default if it is not set in > > > > > rte_eth_dev_configure( ) and rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup(). > > > > > A per port offloading can only be enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure(). > > > > > If a per port offloading is sent to rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( > > > > > ), return error. > > > > > Only per queue offloading can be sent to > rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ). > > > > > A per queue offloading is enabled only if it is enabled in > > > > > rte_eth_dev_configure( ) OR if it is enabled in > > > > > rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ). > > > > > If a per queue offloading is enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure(), > > > > > it can't be disabled in rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ). > > > > > If a per queue offloading is disabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( > > > > > ), it can be enabled or disabled( ) in rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup( ). > > > > > > > > > > This patch can make such checking in a common way in rte_ethdev > > > > > layer to avoid same checking in underlying PMD. > > > > > > > > Hi Wei, > > > > > > > > For clarification, there is existing API for rc1, and there is a > > > > suggested update in API for rc2. I guess this patch is for > > > > suggested update > > in rc2? > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Dai <wei....@intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > v4: fix a wrong description in git log message. > > > > > > > > > > v3: rework according to dicision of offloading API in community > > > > > > > > > > v2: add offloads checking in rte_eth_dev_configure( ). > > > > > check if a requested offloading is supported. > > > > > --- > > > > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 76 > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > > > b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index f0f53d4..70a7904 100644 > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > > > @@ -1196,6 +1196,28 @@ rte_eth_dev_configure(uint16_t port_id, > > > > uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q, > > > > > ETHER_MAX_LEN; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > + /* Any requested offload must be within its device capability */ > > > > > + if ((local_conf.rxmode.offloads & dev_info.rx_offload_capa) != > > > > > + local_conf.rxmode.offloads) { > > > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%d requested Rx > > > > offloads " > > > > > + "0x%" PRIx64 " doesn't match Rx > > > > > offloads " > > > > > + "capability 0x%" PRIx64 "\n", > > > > > + port_id, > > > > > + local_conf.rxmode.offloads, > > > > > + dev_info.rx_offload_capa); > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > + } > > > > > + if ((local_conf.txmode.offloads & dev_info.tx_offload_capa) != > > > > > + local_conf.txmode.offloads) { > > > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%d requested Tx > > > > offloads " > > > > > + "0x%" PRIx64 " doesn't match Tx > > > > > offloads " > > > > > + "capability 0x%" PRIx64 "\n", > > > > > + port_id, > > > > > + local_conf.txmode.offloads, > > > > > + dev_info.tx_offload_capa); > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > + } > > > > +1 having these checks here. > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > /* > > > > > * Setup new number of RX/TX queues and reconfigure device. > > > > > */ > > > > > @@ -1547,6 +1569,33 @@ rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(uint16_t > port_id, > > > > uint16_t rx_queue_id, > > > > > > > > > > &local_conf.offloads); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * Only per-queue offload can be enabled from application. > > > > > + * If any pure per-port offload is sent to this function, > > > > > +return > > -EINVAL > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if ((local_conf.offloads & dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa) != > > > > > + local_conf.offloads) { > > > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Ethdev port_id=%d > > rx_queue_id=%d " > > > > > + "Requested offload 0x%" PRIx64 > > > > > "doesn't " > > > > > + "match per-queue capability 0x%" > > > > > PRIx64 > > > > > + " in rte_eth_rx_queue_setup( )\n", > > > > > + port_id, > > > > > + rx_queue_id, > > > > > + local_conf.offloads, > > > > > + dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa); > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > There is a change here. If requested offload is already enabled in > > > > port level, instead of returning error, ignore it. > > > > So this removes the restriction for apps that "only an offload > > > > from queue capabilities can be send for queue_setup() functions". > > > > This is not requirement for application as it has been before, but > > > > this is allowed for app now. > > > > > > > > If app tried to enable a port offload in queue level that is not > > > > already enabled, it should still return error. > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * If a per-queue offload is enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( > > > > > ), > > > > > + * it is also enabled on all queues and can't be disabled here. > > > > > + * If it is diabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ), it can be > > > > > enabled > > > > > + * or disabled here. > > > > > + * If a per-port offload is enabled in rte_eth_dev_configure( ), > > > > > + * it is also enabled for all queues here. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + local_conf.offloads |= dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads; > > > > > > > > I didn't get this one, why add rxmode.offloads into queue offloads? > > > > > > > > Based on above change Thomas has an suggestion [1]: > > > > > > > > " > > > > In the case of offload already enabled at port level and repeated > > > > in queue setup, ethdev can avoid passing it to the PMD queue setup > > function. > > > > " > > > > > > > > So almost reverse of what you are doing, strip rxmode.offloads > > > > from local_conf.offloads for PMDs. What do you think? > > > > > > Should we do like below > > > local_conf.offloads |= dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads; > > > local_conf.offloads &= dev_info.rx_queue_offload_capa > > > > > > I thinks it's better to only strip port offloads. But keep all queue > > > offload, since this is exact we going to configure the queue and > > > during device start, it can simply iterate on each bit on > > > local_conf.offloads > > to turn on queue offload and don't need to worry about rxmode.offloads. > > > > No > > The offloads which are already enabled at port level does not need to > > be enabled again at queue level. > > But the PMD can decide to not configure the offload at port level for > > real, and configure the port offloads in every queue setups. > > It is an implementation choice, and can be different per-offload. > > OK, got your point, that make sense. > > > So it is simpler to filter such request for queue setups. > > This way, we will be sure that all offloads, requested in queue setup > > PMD function, must be setup for the queue. > > The PMD implementation will need to setup all the requested offloads > > in queue setup, plus the port offloads which were deferred to all queues. > > > > Hope it's clear. > > > >
