[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/kni: calc mbuf&mtu according to given mb_pool

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 3/14/2019 6:37 AM, Liron Himi wrote:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com> 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 18:58
> To: Liron Himi <lironh at marvell.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Alan Winkowski <walan at marvell.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/kni: calc mbuf&mtu according to given mb_pool
> 
> On 3/10/2019 2:27 PM, Liron Himi wrote:
>> Adding Alan.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Liron Himi
>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 13:30
>> To: ferruh.yigit at intel.com
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Liron Himi <lironh at marvell.com>; Liron Himi 
>> <lironh at marvell.com>
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] net/kni: calc mbuf&mtu according to given 
>> mb_pool
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Kind reminder
> 
> Sorry for late response.
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>> Liron
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lironh at marvell.com <lironh at marvell.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 22:15
>> To: ferruh.yigit at intel.com
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Liron Himi <lironh at marvell.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH v2] net/kni: calc mbuf&mtu according to given mb_pool
>>
>> From: Liron Himi <lironh at marvell.com>
>>
>> - mbuf_size and mtu are now being calculated according to the given mb-pool.
> 
> +1 to have dynamic size instead of fixed "MAX_PACKET_SZ"
> 
>>
>> - max_mtu is now being set according to the given mtu
>>
>> the above two changes provide the ability to work with jumbo frames
> 
> From kernel -> userspace, if the data length is bigger than mbuf->buffer_len (-
> headroom) the packet is dropped. I guess you are trying to solve that issue?
> [L.H.] correct
> 
> By providing larger mbuf buffer, it should be possible to send larger (jumbo) packets?
> [L.H.] correct
> 
> Another option can be adding multi segment send support, that also lets sending large packets from kernel to userspace, and it can co-exits with your patch.
> What do you think, can you work on that support?
> [L.H.] I suggest to first go with this patch, and then prepare multi-segment patch if possible

Yes, I was hoping both can go in a same patchset, can it be possible?

> Multi segment support already exists in userspace to kernel path, but otherway around is missing.
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Liron Himi <lironh at marvell.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/kni/rte_eth_kni.c | 10 +++++++---
>>  kernel/linux/kni/compat.h     |  4 ++++
>>  kernel/linux/kni/kni_misc.c   |  3 +++
> 
> It can be good to update release notes / kni documentation to document new feature.
> [L.H.] okay
> 
>>  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/kni/rte_eth_kni.c 
>> b/drivers/net/kni/rte_eth_kni.c index a1e9970..5e02224 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/kni/rte_eth_kni.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/kni/rte_eth_kni.c
>> @@ -16,9 +16,11 @@
>>  /* Only single queue supported */
>>  #define KNI_MAX_QUEUE_PER_PORT 1
>>  
>> -#define MAX_PACKET_SZ 2048
>>  #define MAX_KNI_PORTS 8
>>  
>> +#define KNI_ETHER_MTU(mbuf_size)       \
>> +	((mbuf_size) - ETHER_HDR_LEN) /**< Ethernet MTU. */
>> +
>>  #define ETH_KNI_NO_REQUEST_THREAD_ARG	"no_request_thread"
>>  static const char * const valid_arguments[] = {
>>  	ETH_KNI_NO_REQUEST_THREAD_ARG,
>> @@ -123,11 +125,13 @@ eth_kni_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>  	struct rte_kni_conf conf;
>>  	const char *name = dev->device->name + 4; /* remove net_ */
>>  
>> +	mb_pool = internals->rx_queues[0].mb_pool;
>>  	snprintf(conf.name, RTE_KNI_NAMESIZE, "%s", name);
>>  	conf.force_bind = 0;
>>  	conf.group_id = port_id;
>> -	conf.mbuf_size = MAX_PACKET_SZ;
>> -	mb_pool = internals->rx_queues[0].mb_pool;
>> +	conf.mbuf_size =
>> +		rte_pktmbuf_data_room_size(mb_pool) - RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
>> +	conf.mtu = KNI_ETHER_MTU(conf.mbuf_size);
> 
> Can you please do "conf.mbuf_size" changes also to kni sample application?
> kni sample application gets mtu from physical device, so I believe better to not change that but I think mbuf_size can be dynamic instead of hardcoded.
> [L.H.] okay
> 
> Another question, for the case mbuf size < ETHER_MTU, should we keep MTU ETHER_MTU, what do you think?
> [L.H.] in any case we need to set the MTU according to the mbuf-size until multi-segment support will be available, right?

Right.

> 
>>  
>>  	internals->kni = rte_kni_alloc(mb_pool, &conf, NULL);
>>  	if (internals->kni == NULL) {
>> diff --git a/kernel/linux/kni/compat.h b/kernel/linux/kni/compat.h 
>> index 3c575c7..b9f9a6f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/linux/kni/compat.h
>> +++ b/kernel/linux/kni/compat.h
>> @@ -117,3 +117,7 @@
>>  #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(4, 11, 0)  #define 
>> HAVE_SIGNAL_FUNCTIONS_OWN_HEADER  #endif
>> +
>> +#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(4, 10, 0) #define 
>> +HAVE_MAX_MTU_PARAM #endif
>> diff --git a/kernel/linux/kni/kni_misc.c b/kernel/linux/kni/kni_misc.c 
>> index 522ae23..04c78eb 100644
>> --- a/kernel/linux/kni/kni_misc.c
>> +++ b/kernel/linux/kni/kni_misc.c
>> @@ -459,6 +459,9 @@ kni_ioctl_create(struct net *net, uint32_t 
>> ioctl_num,
>>  
>>  	if (dev_info.mtu)
>>  		net_dev->mtu = dev_info.mtu;
>> +#ifdef HAVE_MAX_MTU_PARAM
>> +	net_dev->max_mtu = net_dev->mtu;
>> +#endif
> 
> Do we need to set 'max_mtu'? I guess this is not really required for large packet support, if so what do you think making this separate patch?
> [L.H.] 'max_mtu' is set by default to '1500', so in order to be able to modify the interface MTU to support jumbo (or even any size > 1500) the 'max_mtu' must be updated to the larger supported value.

I missed that it set by default to '1500', I was thinking it is zero by default.
Can you please point where its default value set in Linux?