[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v15 3/7] ethdev: add validation to offloads set by PMD

[Andrew Rybchenko]

On 11/6/19 9:58 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Andrew Rybchenko
>> On 11/5/19 5:05 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko
>>>> On 11/3/19 6:16 PM, Matan Azrad wrote
>>>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko
>>>>>> On 11/3/19 9:57 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko
>>>>>>>> On 10/31/19 7:33 PM, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Matan,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Pavan
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh
>>>>>>>>>>>> <pbhagavatula at marvell.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some PMDs cannot work when certain offloads
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are enable/disabled, as a workaround PMDs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> auto enable/disable offloads internally and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expose it through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev->data-dev_conf.rxmode.offloads.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After device specific dev_configure is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the requested offloads to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> offloads exposed by the PMD and, if the PMD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed to enable a given offload then log it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and return -EINVAL from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rte_eth_dev_configure, else if the PMD failed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to disable a given offload log and continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with rte_eth_dev_configure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> rte_eth_dev_configure can be called more than 1
>>>>>>>>>>>> time in the device life time, How can you know
>>>>>>>>>>>> what is the minimum offload configurations
>>>>>>>>>>>> required by the port after the first call? 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe putting it in dev info is better, what do
>>>>>>>>>>>> you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> We only return -EINVAL in the case where we
>>>>>>>>>>> enable an offload advertised by dev_info and the
>>>>>>>>>>> port still fails to enable it.
>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure it is ok that devices may
>>>>>>>>>> disable\enable offloads under the hood without user
>>>>>>>>>> notification?
>>>>>>>>> Some devices already do it. The above check adds
>>>>>>>>> validation for the same.
>>>>>>>> The problem is that some offloads cannot be disabled.
>>>>>>> Yes, I understand it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If application does not request Rx checksum offload
>>>>>>>> since it does use it, it is not a problem to report
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> Yes, for RX checksum I tend to agree that application
>>>>>>> doesn't care if the
>>>>>> PMD will calculate the checksum in spite of the offload is
>>>>>> disabled.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But what's about other offloads: For example in RX: LRO,
>>>>>>> CRC_KEEP, VLAN_STRIP, JUMBO If the PMD will stay them on
>>>>>>> while the app is disabling it, It can cause a problems to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>> application (affects the packet length).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, I agree that some offloads are critical to be
>>>>>> disabled, but RSS_HASH discussed in the changeset is not
>>>>>> critical.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, are you agree It should not be checked globally for all
>>>>> the offloads in
>>>> ethdev layer?
>>>> 
>>>> If offload is not requested, but enabled (since PMD cannot
>>>> disable it), right not it will not fail configure, but warn
>>>> about it in logs.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> In this case warning print is not enough since it can be critical
>>> for the
>> application for some offloads.
>>> It can be very weird for the application to see that some offload
>>> are on
>> while the application doesn't expect them to be on.
>>> it even can cause app crash(at least for the RX offload I wrote
>>> above).
>> 
>> The patch improves the situation. Earlier it was silent, now it
>> will be at least visible.
> 
> We can do it visible inside the limited PMDs.

Why?

>> I'm afraid that in 19.11 release cycle we cannot change it to fail 
>> dev_configure. I think it will be too destructive. Future
>> improvement should be discussed separately.
> 
> So we can remove this ethdev patch now and let the PMD to do it until
> we will find better solution later.

Sorry, but I don't think so.

>>>>> It even be more problematic if the dynamic offload field in
>>>>> mbuf is not exist at all.
>>> 
>>> Any answer here?
> 
> A Rx offload requires dynamic mbuf field cannot stay visible while
> the app disabling it. Because the dynamic mbuf field probably is not
> set in the mbuf. May cause problems.
> 
>> Please, clarify the question.
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For example in TX: TSO, VLAN, MULTI_SEG.....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tx is not that critical since application should not
>>>>>> request these offloads per- packet. Tx offloads are mainly
>>>>>> required to ensure that application may request the offload
>>>>>> per packet and it will be done.
>>>>> 
>>>>> yes, you right, In TX it looks less critical (for now).
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Of course, it could be a problem if the offload is
>>>>>>>> used, but application wants to disable it, for example,
>>>>>>>> for debugging purposes. In this case, the solution is
>>>>>>>> to mask offloads on application level, which is not
>>>>>>>> ideal as well.
>>>>>>> Why not ideal?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It eats CPU cycles.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, I don't understand your use case here.
>>>> 
>>>> If application wants to try code path without, for example, Rx 
>>>> checksum offload, it could be insufficient to disable the
>>>> offload right now, but also required to cleanup offload results
>>>> flags in each mbuf (if PMD does not support the offload
>>>> disabling).
>>> 
>>> What is "right now"? Configuration time?
>> 
>> Right now is the current state of some drivers in DPDK tree.
>> 
> 
> OK. I think the offload configuration is in configuration time. No
> data-path.
> 
>>> If application will know that PMD cannot disable the rx-checksum
>>> in configuration time, It can plan to not clean this flag in mbuf
>>> for each rx
>> mbuf.
>> 
>> Yes and application has a way to know it - take a look at
>> dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.offloads.
> 
> As I understand, before this patch, this field used for ethdev layer
> knowledge to track on the application Rx offload configuration. Am I
> wrong?

I think it is just Rx offloads configuration.
It is better to have real offloads here since it is used on Rx
queue setup to mask already enabled offloads.

> And If the meaning is the PMD configuration set (which weirdly can be
> different from what application want) I think it should be an error -
> because app doesn't follow the API.

Which app? Which API?

>>> It looks me like PMD limitation which can be solved by 2
>>> options: 1. Capability information which say to the app what
>>> offload may not be disabled.
>>> 2. Add limitation in the PMD documentation and print
>>> warning\error massage from the PMD.
>> 
>> Yes, right now we are going way (2).
>> 
>>>>>>> If application can know the limitation of offloads
>>>>>>> disabling (for example to
>>>>>> read capability on it)
>>>>>>> The application has all information to take decisions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Anyway, the patch just tries to highlight difference of
>>>>>>>> applied from requested. So, it is a step forward. Also,
>>>>>>>> the patch will fail configure if an offload is
>>>>>>>> requested, but not
>>>>>> enabled.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Can't it break applications? Why does the device
>>>>>>>>>> expose unsupported offloads in dev info? Does it
>>>>>>>>>> update the running offload usynchronically? Race? 
>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain also your specific use case?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matan
>>>>> 
>>> 
>