[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] ethdev: support API to set max LRO packet size

[Dekel Peled]

Thanks, PSB.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 2:40 PM
> To: Dekel Peled <dekelp at mellanox.com>; john.mcnamara at intel.com;
> marko.kovacevic at intel.com; nhorman at tuxdriver.com;
> ajit.khaparde at broadcom.com; somnath.kotur at broadcom.com;
> anatoly.burakov at intel.com; xuanziyang2 at huawei.com;
> cloud.wangxiaoyun at huawei.com; zhouguoyang at huawei.com;
> wenzhuo.lu at intel.com; konstantin.ananyev at intel.com; Matan Azrad
> <matan at mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shahafs at mellanox.com>; Slava
> Ovsiienko <viacheslavo at mellanox.com>; rmody at marvell.com;
> shshaikh at marvell.com; maxime.coquelin at redhat.com;
> tiwei.bie at intel.com; zhihong.wang at intel.com; yongwang at vmware.com;
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; ferruh.yigit at intel.com;
> jingjing.wu at intel.com; bernard.iremonger at intel.com
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ethdev: support API to set max LRO packet size
> 
> On 11/5/19 11:40 AM, Dekel Peled wrote:
> > This patch implements [1], to support API for configuration and
> > validation of max size for LRO aggregated packet.
> > API change notice [2] is removed, and release notes for 19.11 are
> > updated accordingly.
> >
> > Various PMDs using LRO offload are updated, the new data members are
> > initialized to ensure they don't fail validation.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatch
> >
> es.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F58217%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdekelp%40mell
> anox.co
> >
> m%7C751aa0cb18b94b8a447c08d761ed4051%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149
> 256f461
> >
> b%7C0%7C1%7C637085543948425032&sdata=C2laHnaMCQZbDUneQD0
> 2Kpi5iAcr%
> > 2FYDAS%2BMuO8IcV9s%3D&reserved=0
> > [2]
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatch
> >
> es.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F57492%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdekelp%40mell
> anox.co
> >
> m%7C751aa0cb18b94b8a447c08d761ed4051%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149
> 256f461
> >
> b%7C0%7C1%7C637085543948435028&sdata=XnexdrRYNmFyLqT9IL6ZKa
> CLF2JKr
> > oKPDVML7gXKceE%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dekelp at mellanox.com>
> 
> Few comments below, otherwise
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> > b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c index 85ab5f0..2f52090 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> > @@ -1156,6 +1156,26 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
> >  	return name;
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline int
> > +rte_eth_check_lro_pkt_size(uint16_t port_id, uint32_t config_size,
> > +			   uint32_t dev_info_size)
> 
> As I understand Thomas prefers static functions without rte_eth_ prefix.
> I think it is reasonable.

Will remove prefix.

> 
> > +{
> > +	int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (config_size > dev_info_size) {
> > +		RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Ethdev port_id=%d
> max_lro_pkt_size %u > "
> > +			       "max allowed value %u\n",
> > +			       port_id, config_size, dev_info_size);
> > +		ret = -EINVAL;
> > +	} else if (config_size < RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN) {
> 
> Shouldn't config_size == 0 fallback to maximum?
> (I don't know and I simply would like to get comments on it)
> 

This check is for value smaller than minimum, not just 0.

> > +		RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Ethdev port_id=%d
> max_lro_pkt_size %u < "
> > +			       "min allowed value %u\n", port_id, config_size,
> > +			       (unsigned int)RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN);
> > +		ret = -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >  int
> >  rte_eth_dev_configure(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t
> nb_tx_q,
> >  		      const struct rte_eth_conf *dev_conf) @@ -1286,6
> +1306,18 @@
> > struct rte_eth_dev *
> >
> 	RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN;
> >  	}
> >
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If LRO is enabled, check that the maximum aggregated packet
> > +	 * size is supported by the configured device.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (dev_conf->rxmode.offloads & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO) {
> > +		ret = rte_eth_check_lro_pkt_size(
> > +				port_id, dev_conf-
> >rxmode.max_lro_pkt_size,
> > +				dev_info.max_lro_pkt_size);
> > +		if (ret)
> 
> if (ret != 0)
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoc.d
> pdk.org%2Fguides%2Fcontributing%2Fcoding_style.html%23function-
> calls&data=02%7C01%7Cdekelp%40mellanox.com%7C751aa0cb18b94b8
> a447c08d761ed4051%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C1%7C
> 637085543948435028&sdata=wnlhZz70T2l%2B0UOe54XqRhJG53Pc6zMqI
> %2F%2FSu%2B5qDqc%3D&reserved=0
> and the style dominates in rte_ethdev.c
> 

Will change.

> > +			goto rollback;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	/* Any requested offloading must be within its device capabilities */
> >  	if ((dev_conf->rxmode.offloads & dev_info.rx_offload_capa) !=
> >  	     dev_conf->rxmode.offloads) {
> > @@ -1790,6 +1822,18 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> >
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If LRO is enabled, check that the maximum aggregated packet
> > +	 * size is supported by the configured device.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (local_conf.offloads & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO) {
> > +		int ret = rte_eth_check_lro_pkt_size(port_id,
> > +				dev->data-
> >dev_conf.rxmode.max_lro_pkt_size,
> > +				dev_info.max_lro_pkt_size);
> > +		if (ret)
> 
> if (ret != 0)
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoc.d
> pdk.org%2Fguides%2Fcontributing%2Fcoding_style.html%23function-
> calls&data=02%7C01%7Cdekelp%40mellanox.com%7C751aa0cb18b94b8
> a447c08d761ed4051%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C1%7C
> 637085543948435028&sdata=wnlhZz70T2l%2B0UOe54XqRhJG53Pc6zMqI
> %2F%2FSu%2B5qDqc%3D&reserved=0
> and the style dominates in rte_ethdev.c
> 

Will change.

> > +			return ret;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	ret = (*dev->dev_ops->rx_queue_setup)(dev, rx_queue_id,
> nb_rx_desc,
> >  					      socket_id, &local_conf, mp);
> >  	if (!ret) {
> >
> 
> [snip]