[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: configure rxd and txd number correctly

[oulijun]

在 2020/4/20 21:29, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
> On 4/18/2020 3:30 AM, oulijun wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2020/4/18 8:42, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>> On 4/17/2020 11:59 AM, Lijun Ou wrote:
>>>> When users configure rxds and txds by used port config cmd based
>>>> on testpmd application, it will not be able to configure rxd and
>>>> txd according to the max capability range supported by the actual
>>>> NIC hardware. Due testpmd defects, it can only configure a fixed
>>>> range to 0 to 2048.
>>>> The final result is that an incorrect printing prompt appears and
>>>> cannot be applied using rxd && txd according to the actual
>>>> capabilities supported by the device.
>>>> In order to solve the above problems, we modify the testpmd. First
>>>> by calling the rte_eth_dev_info_get api to obtain the max and min
>>>> rx/tx capability supported by the hns3, and then use this range
>>>> to compare with the actual value by users configured and make
>>>> reasonable limitation.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <oulijun at huawei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong at huawei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei at huawei.com>
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> @@ -1212,6 +1383,8 @@ init_config(void)
>>>>    	lcoreid_t  lc_id;
>>>>    	uint8_t port_per_socket[RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES];
>>>>    	struct rte_gro_param gro_param;
>>>> +	uint16_t allowed_max_rxd;
>>>> +	uint16_t allowed_max_txd;
>>>>    	uint32_t gso_types;
>>>>    	uint16_t data_size;
>>>>    	bool warning = 0;
>>>> @@ -1239,6 +1412,9 @@ init_config(void)
>>>>    		fwd_lcores[lc_id]->cpuid_idx = lc_id;
>>>>    	}
>>>>    
>>>> +	allowed_max_rxd = RTE_TEST_RX_DESC_MAX;
>>>> +	allowed_max_txd = RTE_TEST_RX_DESC_MAX;
>>>> +
>>>>    	RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(pid) {
>>>>    		port = &ports[pid];
>>>>    		/* Apply default TxRx configuration for all ports */
>>>> @@ -1299,6 +1475,13 @@ init_config(void)
>>>>    				warning = 1;
>>>>    			}
>>>>    		}
>>>> +
>>>> +		/* Get the maximum number of txd and rxd per queue. */
>>>> +		if (port->dev_info.tx_desc_lim.nb_max > allowed_max_rxd)
>>>> +			allowed_max_txd = port->dev_info.tx_desc_lim.nb_max;
>>>> +
>>>> +		if (port->dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_max > allowed_max_txd)
>>>> +			allowed_max_rxd = port->dev_info.rx_desc_lim.nb_max;
>>>>    	}
>>>>    
>>>>    	if (warning)
>>>> @@ -1317,9 +1500,9 @@ init_config(void)
>>>>    	if (param_total_num_mbufs)
>>>>    		nb_mbuf_per_pool = param_total_num_mbufs;
>>>>    	else {
>>>> -		nb_mbuf_per_pool = RTE_TEST_RX_DESC_MAX +
>>>> +		nb_mbuf_per_pool = allowed_max_rxd +
>>>>    			(nb_lcores * mb_mempool_cache) +
>>>> -			RTE_TEST_TX_DESC_MAX + MAX_PKT_BURST;
>>>> +			allowed_max_txd + MAX_PKT_BURST;
>>>
>>> Overall patch looks good, but with above change, for the PMDs that doesn't
>>> explicitly set 'dev_info.tx_desc_lim.nb_max' gets the default value
>>> 'UINT16_MAX', like virtual PMDs, and this increases the memmory requirement a lot.
>>>
>> Hi，Ferruh
>>     Thanks. if some PMDs are not configured according to the
>> specifications that are actually supported, does the PMDs driver require
>> such a large mbuf by default.
>>> What do you think to keep "port config all rxd|txd <value>" the fix, but remove
>>> above nb_mbuf change?
>> Actually, I agree with your suggestion. But at the same time worry about
>> whether mbuf is not enough, when rxd/txd is greater that
>> RTE_TEST_TX_DESC_MAX
> 
> That is valid concern I think, but user can override the number of mbufs with
> "--total-num-mbufs" parameter, and if device has more than 2048 descriptor the
> user can provide bigger numbers with this param.
> 
Thanks. I see. I have sent the V2.
> .
>