[dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/2] add Tx prepare support for bonding device

[Ananyev, Konstantin]

Hi everyone,

> 
> On 2021/4/20 9:26, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 4/16/2021 12:04 PM, Chengchang Tang wrote:
> >> This patch add Tx prepare for bonding device.
> >>
> >> Currently, the bonding driver has not implemented the callback of
> >> rte_eth_tx_prepare function. Therefore, the TX prepare function of the
> >> slave devices will never be invoked. When hardware offloading such as
> >> CKSUM and TSO are enabled for some drivers, tx_prepare needs to be used
> >> to adjust packets (for example, set correct pseudo packet headers).
> >> Otherwise, related offloading fails and even packets are sent
> >> incorrectly. Due to this limitation, the bonded device cannot use these
> >> HW offloading in the Tx direction.
> >>
> >> Because packet sending algorithms are numerous and complex in bond PMD,
> >> it is hard to design the callback for rte_eth_tx_prepare. In this patch,
> >> the tx_prepare callback of bonding PMD is not implemented. Instead,
> >> rte_eth_tx_prepare has been called in tx_burst callback. And a global
> >> variable is introduced to control whether the bonded device need call
> >> the rte_eth_tx_prepare. If upper-layer users need to use some TX
> >> offloading that depend on tx_prepare , they should enable the preparation
> >> function. In this way, the bonded device will call the rte_eth_tx_prepare
> >> for the fast path packets in the tx_burst callback.

I admit that I didn't look at the implementation yet, but it sounds like 
overcomplication to me. Can't we just have a new TX function for bonding PMD
when TX offloads are enabled? And inside that function we will do:
tx_prepare(); tx_burst(); for selected device.
We can select this function at setup stage analysing requested by user TX offloads. 


> >>
> >
> > What do you think to add a devarg to bonding PMD to control the tx_prepare?
> > It won't be as dynamic as API, since it can be possible to change the behavior after application is started with API, but do we really need
> this?
> 
> If an API is not added, unnecessary constraints may be introduced. If the
> bonding device is created through the rte_eth_bond_create interface instead
> devarg "vdev", this function cannot be used because devargs does not take effect
> in this case. But from an ease-of-use perspective, adding a devarg is a good
> idea. I will add related implementations in the later official patches.

I am also against introducing new devarg to control tx_prepare() invocation.
I think at dev_config/queue_setup phase PMD will have enough information to decide.

> 
> If I understand correctly, the current community does not want to introduce
> more private APIs for PMDs. However, the absence of an API on this issue would
> introduce some unnecessary constraints, and from that point of view, I think
> adding an API seems necessary.
> >
> >> Chengchang Tang (2):
> >>    net/bonding: add Tx prepare for bonding
> >>    app/testpmd: add cmd for bonding Tx prepare
> >>
> >>   app/test-pmd/cmdline.c                      | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst |  9 ++++
> >>   drivers/net/bonding/eth_bond_private.h      |  1 +
> >>   drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond.h          | 29 +++++++++++++
> >>   drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c      | 28 ++++++++++++
> >>   drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c      | 33 +++++++++++++--
> >>   drivers/net/bonding/version.map             |  5 +++
> >>   7 files changed, 167 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.7.4
> >>
> >
> >
> > .
> >