> On 16 Mar 2015, at 15:21, Traynor, Kevin <kevin.tray...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Daniele Di
>> Proietto
>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 6:05 PM
>> To: dev@openvswitch.org
>> Subject: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 2/6] netdev-dpdk: Adapt the requested number of tx
>> and rx queues.
>>
>> This commit changes the semantics of 'netdev_set_multiq()' to allow OVS
>> DPDK to run on device with limited multi queue support.
>
> This is great, because on a dual socket system with an 18 core Haswell and HT
> enabled you could be looking for 72 tx queues.
>
>>
>> * If a netdev doesn't have the requested number of rxqs it can simply
>> inform the datapath without failing.
>> * If a netdev doesn't have the requested number of txqs it should try
>> to create as many as possible and use locking.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniele Di Proietto <diproiet...@vmware.com>
>> ---
>> lib/netdev-dpdk.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> --
>> lib/netdev-provider.h | 11 ++++++
>> lib/netdev.c | 10 ++++++
>> vswitchd/vswitch.xml | 2 +-
>> 4 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c
>> index 54bc318..2278377 100644
>> --- a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c
>> +++ b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c
>
> [snip]
>
>> @@ -656,8 +684,10 @@ netdev_dpdk_set_multiq(struct netdev *netdev_, unsigned
>> int n_txq,
>> netdev->up.n_txq = n_txq;
>> netdev->up.n_rxq = n_rxq;
>> rte_free(netdev->tx_q);
>> - netdev_dpdk_alloc_txq(netdev, n_txq);
>> err = dpdk_eth_dev_init(netdev);
>> + netdev_dpdk_alloc_txq(netdev, netdev->real_n_txq);
>> +
>> + netdev->txq_needs_locking = netdev->real_n_txq != netdev->up.n_txq;
>
> Probably no point in allocing here if you have been returned an error from
> dpdk_eth_dev_init(). You could just skip to the mutex_unlocking
>
I could add another goto label, but it would complicate the code a bit.
If you don’t have a strong opinion about this I would prefer leaving it as it
is.
>>
>> ovs_mutex_unlock(&netdev->mutex);
>> ovs_mutex_unlock(&dpdk_mutex);
>> @@ -921,12 +951,21 @@ netdev_dpdk_send__(struct netdev_dpdk *dev, int qid,
>> }
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> -#define NETDEV_DPDK_CLASS(NAME, INIT, CONSTRUCT, MULTIQ, SEND) \
>> +#define NETDEV_DPDK_CLASS(NAME, INIT, CONSTRUCT) \
>> { \
>> NAME, \
>> INIT, /* init */ \
>> @@ -1429,9 +1455,9 @@ unlock_dpdk:
>> NULL, /* push header */ \
>> NULL, /* pop header */ \
>> netdev_dpdk_get_numa_id, /* get_numa_id */ \
>> - MULTIQ, /* set_multiq */ \
>> + netdev_dpdk_set_multiq, /* set_multiq */ \
>
> I don’t think the netdev_dpdk_set_multiq() is needed for dpdkr as at
> present you can't change the number of q's for dpdkr. It doesn't do
> any harm either. Is there a reason you put it in e.g. future proofing?
I wanted to minimise (when possible) the differences between dpdk and dpdkr.
Besides set_multiq for dpdkr stores the requested number of transmission queues
on netdev->n_txq, which can be shown via ovs-appctl dpctl/show -s
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
