[EXT] Re: [PATCH v11 1/1] app/testpmd: support multiple mbuf pools per Rx queue

[Hanumanth Reddy Pothula]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Singh, Aman Deep <aman.deep.singh at intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 8:50 PM
> To: Hanumanth Reddy Pothula <hpothula at marvell.com>; Yuying Zhang
> <yuying.zhang at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru;
> thomas at monjalon.net; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>;
> Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram at marvell.com>
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v11 1/1] app/testpmd: support multiple
> mbuf pools per Rx queue
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/3/2022 6:06 PM, Hanumanth Reddy Pothula wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Singh, Aman Deep <aman.deep.singh at intel.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 5:46 PM
> >> To: Hanumanth Reddy Pothula <hpothula at marvell.com>; Yuying Zhang
> >> <yuying.zhang at intel.com>
> >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru;
> thomas at monjalon.net;
> >> Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar
> >> Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram at marvell.com>
> >> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v11 1/1] app/testpmd: support multiple mbuf
> >> pools per Rx queue
> >>
> >> External Email
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/25/2022 7:10 AM, Hanumanth Pothula wrote:
> >>> Some of the HW has support for choosing memory pools based on the
> >>> packet's size. The pool sort capability allows PMD/NIC to choose a
> >>> memory pool based on the packet's length.
> >>>
> >>> On multiple mempool support enabled, populate mempool array
> >>> accordingly. Also, print pool name on which packet is received.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Hanumanth Pothula <hpothula at marvell.com>
> >>> v11:
> >>>    - Resolve compilation and warning.
> >>> v10:
> >>>    - Populate multi-mempool array based on mbuf_data_size_n instead
> >>>      of rx_pkt_nb_segs.
> >>> ---
> >>>    app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> ---------
> >>>    app/test-pmd/testpmd.h |  3 ++
> >>>    app/test-pmd/util.c    |  4 +--
> >>>    3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
> >>> 5b0f0838dc..62f7c9dba8 100644
> >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> >>> @@ -2647,11 +2647,18 @@ rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id,
> uint16_t
> >> rx_queue_id,
> >>>    	       struct rte_eth_rxconf *rx_conf, struct rte_mempool *mp)
> >>>    {
> >>>    	union rte_eth_rxseg rx_useg[MAX_SEGS_BUFFER_SPLIT] = {};
> >>> +	struct rte_mempool *rx_mempool[MAX_MEMPOOL] = {};
> >>> +	struct rte_mempool *mpx;
> >>>    	unsigned int i, mp_n;
> >>>    	int ret;
> >>>
> >>> -	if (rx_pkt_nb_segs <= 1 ||
> >>> -	    (rx_conf->offloads & RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT) ==
> 0) {
> >>> +	/* Verify Rx queue configuration is single pool and segment or
> >>> +	 * multiple pool/segment.
> >>> +	 * @see rte_eth_rxconf::rx_mempools
> >>> +	 * @see rte_eth_rxconf::rx_seg
> >>> +	 */
> >>> +	if (!(mbuf_data_size_n > 1) && !(rx_pkt_nb_segs > 1 ||
> >>> +	    ((rx_conf->offloads & RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT) !=
> 0)))
> >>> +{
> >>>    		rx_conf->rx_seg = NULL;
> >>>    		rx_conf->rx_nseg = 0;
> >>>    		ret = rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(port_id, rx_queue_id, @@ -
> >> 2659,29
> >>> +2666,39 @@ rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t
> rx_queue_id,
> >>>    					     rx_conf, mp);
> >>>    		goto exit;
> >>>    	}
> >>> -	for (i = 0; i < rx_pkt_nb_segs; i++) {
> >>> -		struct rte_eth_rxseg_split *rx_seg = &rx_useg[i].split;
> >>> -		struct rte_mempool *mpx;
> >>> -		/*
> >>> -		 * Use last valid pool for the segments with number
> >>> -		 * exceeding the pool index.
> >>> -		 */
> >>> -		mp_n = (i >= mbuf_data_size_n) ? mbuf_data_size_n - 1 : i;
> >>> -		mpx = mbuf_pool_find(socket_id, mp_n);
> >>> -		/* Handle zero as mbuf data buffer size. */
> >>> -		rx_seg->offset = i < rx_pkt_nb_offs ?
> >>> -				   rx_pkt_seg_offsets[i] : 0;
> >>> -		rx_seg->mp = mpx ? mpx : mp;
> >>> -		if (rx_pkt_hdr_protos[i] != 0 && rx_pkt_seg_lengths[i] == 0)
> {
> >>> -			rx_seg->proto_hdr = rx_pkt_hdr_protos[i];
> >>> -		} else {
> >>> -			rx_seg->length = rx_pkt_seg_lengths[i] ?
> >>> -					rx_pkt_seg_lengths[i] :
> >>> -					mbuf_data_size[mp_n];
> >>> +	if (rx_conf->offloads & RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT) {
> >> In case this flag *_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT is not set, but
> >> rx_pkt_nb_segs > 1 Will it still enter below loop, as before.
> > Yes Aman, RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT flag to be set to
> proceed further.
> > Do you suggest to enter the loop on  rx_pkt_nb_segs > 1 irrespective of
> RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT flag.
> > Something like,
> > if (rx_pkt_nb_segs > 1) {
> > 	for(i = 0; i < rx_pkt_nb_segs; i++){
> > 	}
> > }
> 
> As per the old logic, either of the case was supported- if (rx_pkt_nb_segs <=
> 1 || (rx_conf->offloads & RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT) == 0)
> 


Yes, will update accordingly.

> >
> >>> +		for (i = 0; i < rx_pkt_nb_segs; i++) {
> >>> +			struct rte_eth_rxseg_split *rx_seg =
> &rx_useg[i].split;
> >>> +			/*
> >>> +			 * Use last valid pool for the segments with number
> >>> +			 * exceeding the pool index.
> >>> +			 */
> >>> +			mp_n = (i > mbuf_data_size_n) ? mbuf_data_size_n
> - 1 :
> >> i;
> >>> +			mpx = mbuf_pool_find(socket_id, mp_n);
> >>> +			if (rx_conf->offloads &
> >> RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT) {
> >>
> >> Isn't above check already found to be TRUE, before we reached here.
> > Yes this is redundant, will remove.
> >>> +				/**
> >>> +				 * On Segment length zero, update length as,
> >>> +				 *      buffer size - headroom size
> >>> +				 * to make sure enough space is accomidate
> for
> >> header.
> >>> +				 */
> >>> +				rx_seg->length = rx_pkt_seg_lengths[i] ?
> >>> +						 rx_pkt_seg_lengths[i] :
> >>> +						 mbuf_data_size[mp_n] -
> >> RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
> >>> +				rx_seg->offset = i < rx_pkt_nb_offs ?
> >>> +						 rx_pkt_seg_offsets[i] : 0;
> >>> +				rx_seg->mp = mpx ? mpx : mp;
> >>> +			}
> >>> +		}
> >>> +		rx_conf->rx_nseg = rx_pkt_nb_segs;
> >>> +		rx_conf->rx_seg = rx_useg;
> >>> +	} else {
> >>> +		for (i = 0; i < mbuf_data_size_n; i++) {
> >>> +			mpx = mbuf_pool_find(socket_id, i);
> >>> +			rx_mempool[i] = mpx ? mpx : mp;
> >>>    		}
> >>> +		rx_conf->rx_mempools = rx_mempool;
> >>> +		rx_conf->rx_nmempool = mbuf_data_size_n;
> >>>    	}
> >>> -	rx_conf->rx_nseg = rx_pkt_nb_segs;
> >>> -	rx_conf->rx_seg = rx_useg;
> >>>    	ret = rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(port_id, rx_queue_id, nb_rx_desc,
> >>>    				    socket_id, rx_conf, NULL);
> >>>    	rx_conf->rx_seg = NULL;
> >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h index
> >>> e65be323b8..14be10dcef 100644
> >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h
> >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h
> >>> @@ -80,6 +80,9 @@ extern uint8_t cl_quit;
> >>>
> >>>    #define MIN_TOTAL_NUM_MBUFS 1024
> >>>
> >>> +/* Maximum number of pools supported per Rx queue */ #define
> >>> +MAX_MEMPOOL 8
> >>> +
> >>>    typedef uint8_t  lcoreid_t;
> >>>    typedef uint16_t portid_t;
> >>>    typedef uint16_t queueid_t;
> >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/util.c b/app/test-pmd/util.c index
> >>> fd98e8b51d..f9df5f69ef 100644
> >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/util.c
> >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/util.c
> >>> @@ -150,8 +150,8 @@ dump_pkt_burst(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t
> queue,
> >> struct rte_mbuf *pkts[],
> >>>    		print_ether_addr(" - dst=", &eth_hdr->dst_addr,
> >>>    				 print_buf, buf_size, &cur_len);
> >>>    		MKDUMPSTR(print_buf, buf_size, cur_len,
> >>> -			  " - type=0x%04x - length=%u - nb_segs=%d",
> >>> -			  eth_type, (unsigned int) mb->pkt_len,
> >>> +			  " - pool=%s - type=0x%04x - length=%u -
> >> nb_segs=%d",
> >>> +			  mb->pool->name, eth_type, (unsigned int) mb-
> >>> pkt_len,
> >>>    			  (int)mb->nb_segs);
> >>>    		ol_flags = mb->ol_flags;
> >>>    		if (ol_flags & RTE_MBUF_F_RX_RSS_HASH) {