> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniele Di Proietto [mailto:diproiet...@vmware.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 6:28 PM
> To: Traynor, Kevin
> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 2/6] netdev-dpdk: Adapt the requested number of
> tx and rx queues.
>
>
> > 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.
No strong opinion - present scheme sounds fine too. On failure, you would
assume
that it will be called again or an abort would occur so it's not a big deal.
>
> >>
> >> 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
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
