On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 06:52:18PM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richardson, Bruce
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 3:14 PM
> > To: Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Ananyev, 
> > Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Richardson,
> > Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH v2] net/i40e: fix Tx fn selection when using new ethdev 
> > offloads
> > 
> > The Tx function selection code in the driver only used the older txq
> > flags values to check whether the scalar or vector functions should be
> > used. This caused performance regressions with testpmd io-fwd as the
> > scalar path rather than the vector one was being used in the default
> > case. Fix this by changing the code to take account of new offloads and
> > deleting the defines used for the old ones.
> > 
> > Fixes: 7497d3e2f777 ("net/i40e: convert to new Tx offloads API")
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
> > index ec1ce54ca..006f5b846 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
> > @@ -40,9 +40,6 @@
> >  /* Base address of the HW descriptor ring should be 128B aligned. */
> >  #define I40E_RING_BASE_ALIGN       128
> > 
> > -#define I40E_SIMPLE_FLAGS ((uint32_t)ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTSEGS | \
> > -                                   ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOOFFLOADS)
> > -
> >  #define I40E_TXD_CMD (I40E_TX_DESC_CMD_EOP | I40E_TX_DESC_CMD_RS)
> > 
> >  #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588
> > @@ -2108,11 +2105,9 @@ i40e_dev_tx_queue_setup_runtime(struct rte_eth_dev 
> > *dev,
> >                              dev->data->nb_tx_queues)) {
> >             /**
> >              * If it is the first queue to setup,
> > -            * set all flags to default and call
> > +            * set all flags and call
> >              * i40e_set_tx_function.
> >              */
> > -           ad->tx_simple_allowed = true;
> > -           ad->tx_vec_allowed = true;
> >             i40e_set_tx_function_flag(dev, txq);
> >             i40e_set_tx_function(dev);
> >             return 0;
> > @@ -2128,9 +2123,8 @@ i40e_dev_tx_queue_setup_runtime(struct rte_eth_dev 
> > *dev,
> >     }
> >     /* check simple tx conflict */
> >     if (ad->tx_simple_allowed) {
> > -           if (((txq->txq_flags & I40E_SIMPLE_FLAGS) !=
> > -                I40E_SIMPLE_FLAGS) ||
> > -               txq->tx_rs_thresh < RTE_PMD_I40E_TX_MAX_BURST) {
> > +           if (txq->offloads != 0 ||
> > +                           txq->tx_rs_thresh < RTE_PMD_I40E_TX_MAX_BURST) {
> >                     PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "No-simple tx is required.");
> >                     return -EINVAL;
> >             }
> > @@ -3080,18 +3074,21 @@ i40e_set_tx_function_flag(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, 
> > struct i40e_tx_queue *txq)
> >             I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_ADAPTER(dev->data->dev_private);
> > 
> >     /* Use a simple Tx queue (no offloads, no multi segs) if possible */
> > -   if (((txq->txq_flags & I40E_SIMPLE_FLAGS) == I40E_SIMPLE_FLAGS)
> > -                   && (txq->tx_rs_thresh >= RTE_PMD_I40E_TX_MAX_BURST)) {
> > -           if (txq->tx_rs_thresh <= RTE_I40E_TX_MAX_FREE_BUF_SZ) {
> > -                   PMD_INIT_LOG(DEBUG, "Vector tx"
> > -                                " can be enabled on this txq.");
> > -
> > -           } else {
> > -                   ad->tx_vec_allowed = false;
> > -           }
> > -   } else {
> > -           ad->tx_simple_allowed = false;
> > -   }
> > +   ad->tx_simple_allowed = (txq->offloads == 0 &&
> > +                   txq->tx_rs_thresh >= RTE_PMD_I40E_TX_MAX_BURST);
> 
> Actually after another thought - who setup txq->offloads?
> I did a quick scan, through i40e code and seems no one does.
> So now it seems not possible to enable TX offloads at all.
> Konstantin
> 
> BTW, seems like rxq->offloads are not properly initialised too.
> 
The offloads value should come from the app, no?

Reply via email to