[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: add apis to support access device info

[Ananyev, Konstantin]

> > > > > > > > > > +int
> > > > > > > > > > +rte_eth_dev_get_ringparam(uint8_t port_id, struct
> > > > > > > > > > +rte_dev_ring_info
> > > > > > > > > > +*info) {
> > > > > > > > > > +	struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +	if (!rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(port_id)) {
> > > > > > > > > > +		PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Invalid port_id=%d\n",
> > > > > port_id);
> > > > > > > > > > +		return -ENODEV;
> > > > > > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +	if ((dev= &rte_eth_devices[port_id]) == NULL) {
> > > > > > > > > > +		PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Invalid port device\n");
> > > > > > > > > > +		return -ENODEV;
> > > > > > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +	FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->get_ringparam, -
> > > > > > > > > ENOTSUP);
> > > > > > > > > > +	return (*dev->dev_ops->get_ringparam)(dev, info); }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think it will be a useful addition to the ethdev API  to
> > > > > > > > > have an ability to retrieve current RX/TX queue parameters.
> > > > > > > > > Though again, it need to be more generic, so it could be
> > > > > > > > > useful for
> > > > > > > > > non- ethtool upper layer too.
> > > > > > > > > So I suggest to modify it a bit.
> > > > > > > > > Something like that:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > struct rte_eth_tx_queue_info {
> > > > > > > > >     struct rte_eth_txconf txconf;
> > > > > > > > >     uint32_t nb_tx_desc;
> > > > > > > > >     uint32_t nb_max_tx_desc; /*max allowable TXDs for that
> > > queue */
> > > > > > > > >     uint32_t nb_tx_free;            /* number of free TXDs at
> > > the moment
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > call.
> > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > >     /* other tx queue data. */ };
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > int rte_etdev_get_tx_queue_info(portid, queue_id, struct
> > > > > > > > > rte_eth_tx_queue_info *qinfo)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Then, your upper layer ethtool wrapper, can implement yours
> > > > > > > > > ethtool_get_ringparam() by:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  ...
> > > > > > > > >  struct rte_eth_tx_queue_info qinfo;
> > > > > > > > > rte_ethdev_get_tx_queue_info(port, 0, &qinfo);
> > > > > > > > > ring_param->tx_pending = qinfo.nb_tx_desc -
> > > > > > > > > rte_eth_rx_queue_count(port, 0);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Or probably even:
> > > > > > > > > ring_param->tx_pending = qinfo.nb_tx_desc -
> > > > > > > > > qinfo.nb_tx_free;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Same for RX.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For now, this descriptor ring information is used by the ethtool
> > > op.
> > > > > > > > To make this interface simple, i.e. caller doesn't need to
> > > > > > > > access other
> > > > > > > queue information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just repeat what I said to you in off-line conversation:
> > > > > > > ethdev API is not equal ethtool API.
> > > > > > > It is ok to add  a new function/structure to ethdev if it really
> > > > > > > needed, but we should do mechanical one to one copy.
> > > > > > > It is much better to add  a function/structure that would be
> > > > > > > more generic, and suit other users, not only ethtool.
> > > > > > > There is no point to have dozen functions in rte_ethdev API
> > > > > > > providing similar information.
> > > > > > > BTW, I don't see how API I proposed is much more  complex, then
> > > > > > > yours
> > > > > one.
> > > > > > The ring parameter is a run-time information which is different
> > > > > > than data
> > > > > structure described in this discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how they are different.
> > > > > Looking at ixgbe_get_ringparam(), it returns:
> > > > > rx_max_pending - that's a static IXGBE PMD value (max possible
> > > > > number of RXDs per one queue).
> > > > > rx_pending - number of RXD currently in use by the HW for queue 0
> > > > > (that information can be changed at each call).
> > > > >
> > > > > With the approach I suggesting - you can get same information for
> > > > > each RX queue by calling rte_ethdev_get_rx_queue_info() and
> > > > > rte_eth_rx_queue_count().
> > > > > Plus you are getting other RX queue data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another thing - what is practical usage of the information you
> > > > > retrieving now by get_ringparam()?
> > > > > Let say it returned to you: rx_max_pending=4096; rx_pending=128; How
> > > > > that information would help to understand what is going on with the
> > > device?
> > > > > Without knowing  value of nb_tx_desc for the queue, you can't say is
> > > > > you queue full or not.
> > > > > Again, it could be that all your traffic going through some other
> > > > > queue (not 0).
> > > > > So from my point rte_eth_dev_get_ringparam()  usage is very limited,
> > > > > and doesn't provide enough information about current queue state.
> > > > >
> > > > > Same thing applies for TX.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > After careful review the suggestion in this comment, and review the
> > > existing dpdk source code.
> > > > I came to realize that neither rte_ethdev_get_rx_queue_info,
> > > > rte_ethdev_get_tx_queue_info, struct rte_eth_rx_queue_info and struct
> > > > rte_eth_tx_queue_info are available in the existing dpdk source code. I
> > > could not make a patch based upon a set of non- existent API and data
> > > structure.
> > >
> > > Right now, in dpdk.org source code, struct  rte_eth_dev_ring_info, struct
> > > rte_dev_eeprom_info and struct  rte_dev_reg_info don't exist also.
> > > Same as  all these functions:
> > >
> > > rte_eth_dev_default_mac_addr_set
> > > rte_eth_dev_reg_length
> > > rte_eth_dev_reg_info
> > > rte_eth_dev_eeprom_length
> > > rte_eth_dev_get_eeprom
> > > rte_eth_dev_set_eeprom
> > > rte_eth_dev_get_ringparam
> > >
> > > All this is a new API that's you are trying to add.
> > > But, by some reason you consider it is ok to add 'struct
> > > rte_eth_dev_ring_info', but couldn't add  struct
> > > 'rte_ethdev_get_tx_queue_info'
> > > That just doesn't make any sense to me.
> > > In fact, I think our conversation is going in cycles.
> > > If you are not happy with the suggested approach, please provide some
> > > meaningful reason why.
> > > Konstantin
> >
> > It seems the new API aims at providing users a mechanism to quickly and
> > gracefully migrate from using ethtool/ioctl calls.
> 
> I am fine with that goal in general.
> But it doesn't mean that all ethool API should be pushed into rte_ethdev layer.
> That's why  a shim layer on top of rte_ethdev is created -
> it's goal is to provide for the upper layer an ethool-like API and
> hide actual implementation based on rte_ethdev API inside.
> 
> >  The provided get/set
> > ring param info is very similar to that of ethtool and facilitates the
> > ethtool needs.
> 

Actually a quick questions to you guys:
Looking at linux struct ethtool_ringparam description, I am seeing:
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h:
@rx_pending: Current maximum number of pending entries per RX ring

And all linux driver I looked at (ixgbe,i40e,virtio,vmxbet3) returns number
of configured RX descriptors for queue 0.
In DPDK terms: nb_desc for the queue.

While in Larry's patch,  ixgbe_get_ringparam() for rx_pending returns
number of RX descriptors that are in HW use (for queue 0).
So, did you intentionally change linux ethool get_ringparam() behaviour here,
or is it just a mistake?

Konstantin