[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
Ouyang, Changchun
changchun.ouyang at intel.com
Mon Jan 12 04:41:04 CET 2015
From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz at cloudius-systems.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 9:50 PM
To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev at dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
On 01/09/15 07:54, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz at cloudius-systems.com]
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2015 2:49 AM
To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
On 01/08/15 11:19, Vlad Zolotarov wrote:
On 01/07/15 08:32, Ouyang Changchun wrote:
Check mq mode for VMDq RSS, handle it correctly instead of returning
an error; Also remove the limitation of per pool queue number has max
value of 1, because the per pool queue number could be 2 or 4 if it
is VMDq RSS mode;
The number of rxq specified in config will determine the mq mode for
VMDq RSS.
Signed-off-by: Changchun Ouyang <changchun.ouyang at intel.com><mailto:changchun.ouyang at intel.com>
changes in v5:
- Fix '<' issue, it should be '<=' to test rxq number;
- Extract a function to remove the embeded switch-case statement.
---
lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 50
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index 95f2ceb..8363e26 100644
--- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
+++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
@@ -503,6 +503,31 @@ rte_eth_dev_tx_queue_config(struct
rte_eth_dev
*dev, uint16_t nb_queues)
}
static int
+rte_eth_dev_check_vf_rss_rxq_num(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q)
+{
+ struct rte_eth_dev *dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
+ switch (nb_rx_q) {
+ case 1:
+ case 2:
+ RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active =
+ ETH_64_POOLS;
+ break;
+ case 4:
+ RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active =
+ ETH_32_POOLS;
+ break;
+ default:
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = nb_rx_q;
+ RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).def_pool_q_idx =
+ dev->pci_dev->max_vfs * nb_rx_q;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int
rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q,
uint16_t nb_tx_q,
const struct rte_eth_conf *dev_conf)
{
@@ -510,8 +535,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id,
uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active != 0) {
/* check multi-queue mode */
- if ((dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_RSS) ||
- (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB) ||
+ if ((dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB) ||
(dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB_RSS) ||
(dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_TX_DCB)) {
/* SRIOV only works in VMDq enable mode */ @@ -525,7
+549,6 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t
nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
}
switch (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode) {
- case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS:
case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB:
case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB_RSS:
/* DCB/RSS VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement yet */ @@
-534,6 +557,25 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id,
uint16_t
nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
"unsupported VMDQ mq_mode rx %u\n",
port_id, dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode);
return (-EINVAL);
+ case ETH_MQ_RX_RSS:
+ PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8
+ " SRIOV active, "
+ "Rx mq mode is changed from:"
+ "mq_mode %u into VMDQ mq_mode %u\n",
+ port_id,
+ dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode,
+ dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode);
+ case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS:
+ dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode =
ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS;
+ if (nb_rx_q <= RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool)
+ if (rte_eth_dev_check_vf_rss_rxq_num(port_id,
nb_rx_q) != 0) {
+ PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%d"
+ " SRIOV active, invalid queue"
+ " number for VMDQ RSS\n",
+ port_id);
Some nitpicking here: I'd add the allowed values descriptions to the
error message. Something like: "invalid queue number for VMDQ RSS.
Allowed values are 1, 2 or 4\n".
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ break;
default: /* ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_RX_NONE */
/* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode =
ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY; @@ -553,8 +595,6 @@
rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q,
uint16_t nb_tx_q,
default: /* ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_TX_NONE */
/* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.mq_mode =
ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY;
- if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1)
- RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;
I'm not sure u may just remove it. These lines originally belong to a
different flow. Are u sure u can remove them like that? What if the
mq_mode is ETH_MQ_RX_NONE and nb_q_per_pool has been initialized
to 4
or 8 in ixgbe_pf_host_init()?
I misread the patch - these lines belong to the txmode.mq_mode switch case.
I think it's ok to remove these really strange lines here. And when I look at it i
think for the similar reasons the similar lines should be removed in the Rx
case too: consider non-RSS case with MQ DCB Tx configuration.
I search code in this function, only one place has
" if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1)
RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;"
The only place is default branch, which is for rx_none, or vmdq_only mode,
Here is a snippet of an rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode() from the current master:
switch (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode) {
case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS:
case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB:
case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB_RSS:
/* DCB/RSS VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement yet */
PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8
" SRIOV active, "
"unsupported VMDQ mq_mode rx %u\n",
port_id, dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode);
return (-EINVAL);
default: /* ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_RX_NONE */
/* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY;
if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1) <---- This is one
RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;
break;
}
switch (dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode) {
case ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_DCB:
/* DCB VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement yet */
PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8
" SRIOV active, "
"unsupported VMDQ mq_mode tx %u\n",
port_id, dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode);
return (-EINVAL);
default: /* ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_TX_NONE */
/* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY;
if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1) <------ This is two. This is what your patch is removing
RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;
break;
}
Changchun: yes you are correct, what I mean in my last response is that only one place AFTER my removal, so there are 2 places before my removal.
no controversial here.
We don't need remove this, as it should assign as 1 because it did use 1 queue per pool.
And why is that? Just because RSS was not enabled? And what if a user wants multiple Tx queues? Mode 1100b of MRQE for instance?
Changchun: I can explain why I need this change(remove the second place) here,
In the txmode, when txmode is ETH_MQ_TX_NONE, but the rx mode could either be ETH_MQ_RX_NONE or
ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS, so we could not forcedly set nb_q_per_pool into 1 just hit the condition of txmode is ETH_MQ_TX_NONE,
Because we need consider it is combination of rx mode is ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS, and tx mode is ETH_MQ_TX_NONE,
In such a case, the queue number per pool could be 1, or 2, or 4.
In another hand, introducing ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_RSS for tx mode, seems very strange, because tx side has no rss feature.
thanks Changchun
More information about the dev
mailing list