[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove restriction on txpkts set

Ferruh Yigit ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Thu Dec 3 11:18:30 CET 2020
Previous message: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove restriction on txpkts set
Next message: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix segment number check
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 12/3/2020 9:45 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> Hi, Ferruh
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 14:07
>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo at nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas
>> Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Wei Hu (Xavier)
>> <huwei013 at chinasoftinc.com>
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; xavier.huwei at huawei.com
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove restriction on
>> txpkts set
>>
>> On 11/27/2020 1:05 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 14:38
>>>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo at nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas
>>>> Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Wei Hu (Xavier)
>>>> <huwei013 at chinasoftinc.com>
>>>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; xavier.huwei at huawei.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove
>>>> restriction on txpkts set
>>>>
>>>> On 11/26/2020 7:24 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
>>>>> The bug:
>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbu
>>>>> gs
>>>>>
>>>>
>> .dpdk.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D584&data=04%7C01%7Cviacheslavo
>>>> %40n
>>>>>
>>>>
>> vidia.com%7Ce52ba5bbab184ac8592808d8920842c5%7C43083d15727340c1b7
>>>> db39e
>>>>>
>>>>
>> fd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637419911462011700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3
>>>> d8eyJWIjo
>>>>>
>>>>
>> iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000
>>>> &amp
>>>>>
>>>>
>> ;sdata=QBB67WqEjUHgwqHNjqx2VLdaTRMzMeodh%2B%2FVFsHByQg%3D&am
>>>> p;reserved
>>>>> =0
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we pass the nb_segs = 1 always?
>>>>> One descriptor is minimal basic capability to send, it should be
>>>>> always
>>>> supported.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Slava,
>>>>
>>>> I didn't get your comment, can you please elaborate?
>>>>
>>> The --txpkts is rejected on testpmd startup due to port is not
>>> configured yet and we can't find out how many descriptors are actually
>>> configured in the Tx queues.
>>>
>>> Configuring Tx queues with zero descriptors seems to be meaningless,
>>> it would disable a basic capability to send the packets. And we could
>>> assume the single segment packet sending is always supported.
>>>
>>> If --txpkts sets only the size for the single segment we can assume
>>> that the packets with only one segment is going to be sent, and we
>>> could ignore the Tx queue descriptor number check for the case.
>>>
>>
>> Overall I was OK to remove the check completely, even multi segment used it
>> is very unlikely that number of segments will be more than descriptor size.
>>
>> But at least OK to ignore the check for single segment, also we can force '--txd'
>> parameter provided to enable '--txpkts', like done before.
> 
> OK, I'll provide the patch taking both approaches on testpmd startup:
> - if --txd is specified the check will be done against it,  failed check for non-configured port will be ignored
> - if there is the only one segment specified in txpkts,  failed check for non-configured port will be ignored
> 

Sounds good, thank you.

> With best regards, Slava
> 
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> With best regards, Slava
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 16:07
>>>>>> To: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Wei Hu
>>>>>> (Xavier) <huwei013 at chinasoftinc.com>
>>>>>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; xavier.huwei at huawei.com; Slava Ovsiienko
>>>>>> <viacheslavo at nvidia.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove
>>>>>> restriction on txpkts set
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/24/2020 12:23 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/24/2020 10:27 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is it OK to keep this regression?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ferruh, what do you suggest?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I confirm the '--txpkts' parameter is broken now, I suggest
>>>>>>> submitting a defect for it and continue with the regression.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Slava,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please submit the Bugzilla defect?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> ferruh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have alternative for the parameter, "set txpkts <len0[,len1]*>"
>>>> command.
>>>>>>> The parameter was only working when hardcoded '--txd=N' parameter is
>>>>>>> provided, the command is more dynamic and works however queue size
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>> configured.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can fix the '--txpkts' in next release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 23/11/2020 12:50, Slava Ovsiienko:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,  Wei
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was found this patch rejects the --txpkts command line settings.
>>>>>>>>> set_tx_pkt_segments() is called before device started and we have
>>>>>>>>> failure chain:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> set_tx_pkt_segments()
>>>>>>>>>       nb_segs_is_invalid()
>>>>>>>>>         get_tx_ring_size ()
>>>>>>>>>          rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get()
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It causes --txpkts testpmd command line option is ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With best regards, Slava
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: dev <dev-bounces at dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Wei Hu (Xavier)
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 15:47
>>>>>>>>>> To: dev at dpdk.org
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: xavier.huwei at huawei.com
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove
>>>>>>>>>> restriction on txpkts set
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang at huawei.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Currently, if nb_txd is not set, the txpkts is not allowed to be
>>>>>>>>>> set because the nb_txd is used to avoid the numer of segments
>>>>>>>>>> exceed the Tx ring size and the default value of nb_txd is 0. And
>>>>>>>>>> there is a bug that nb_txd is the global configuration for Tx
>>>>>>>>>> ring size and the ring size could be changed by some command per
>>>> queue.
>>>>>>>>>> So these valid check is unreliable and introduced unnecessary
>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This patch adds a valid check function to use the real Tx ring
>>>>>>>>>> size to check the validity of txpkts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: stable at dpdk.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang at huawei.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Hu (Xavier) <xavier.huwei at huawei.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> v3 -> v4:
>>>>>>>>>>         add check 'rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get()' return value and
>>>>>>>>>>         if it is '-ENOSTUP' calculate the 'ring_size'.
>>>>>>>>>> v3:      initial version.
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>      app/test-pmd/config.c | 64
>>>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>>>>>>>>      1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c index
>>>>>>>>>> 6496d2f..8ebb927 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1893,6 +1893,38 @@ tx_queue_id_is_invalid(queueid_t
>> txq_id)
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      static int
>>>>>>>>>> +get_tx_ring_size(portid_t port_id, queueid_t txq_id, uint16_t
>>>>>>>>>> +*ring_size) {
>>>>>>>>>> +    struct rte_port *port = &ports[port_id];
>>>>>>>>>> +    struct rte_eth_txq_info tx_qinfo;
>>>>>>>>>> +    int ret;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +    ret = rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get(port_id, txq_id, &tx_qinfo);
>>>>>>>>>> +    if (ret == 0) {
>>>>>>>>>> +        *ring_size = tx_qinfo.nb_desc;
>>>>>>>>>> +        return ret;
>>>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +    if (ret != -ENOTSUP)
>>>>>>>>>> +        return ret;
>>>>>>>>>> +    /*
>>>>>>>>>> +     * If the rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get is not support for this
>>>>>>>>>> +PMD,
>>>>>>>>>> +     * ring_size stored in testpmd will be used for validity
>> verification.
>>>>>>>>>> +     * When configure the txq by rte_eth_tx_queue_setup with
>>>>>>>>>> nb_tx_desc
>>>>>>>>>> +     * being 0, it will use a default value provided by PMDs to
>>>>>>>>>> +setup this
>>>>>>>>>> +     * txq. If the default value is 0, it will use the
>>>>>>>>>> +     * RTE_ETH_DEV_FALLBACK_TX_RINGSIZE to setup this txq.
>>>>>>>>>> +     */
>>>>>>>>>> +    if (port->nb_tx_desc[txq_id])
>>>>>>>>>> +        *ring_size = port->nb_tx_desc[txq_id];
>>>>>>>>>> +    else if (port->dev_info.default_txportconf.ring_size)
>>>>>>>>>> +        *ring_size =
>>>>>>>>>> +port->dev_info.default_txportconf.ring_size;
>>>>>>>>>> +    else
>>>>>>>>>> +        *ring_size = RTE_ETH_DEV_FALLBACK_TX_RINGSIZE;
>>>>>>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +static int
>>>>>>>>>>      rx_desc_id_is_invalid(uint16_t rxdesc_id)  {
>>>>>>>>>>          if (rxdesc_id < nb_rxd)
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2986,17 +3018,41 @@ show_tx_pkt_segments(void)
>>>>>>>>>>          printf("Split packet: %s\n", split);
>>>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +static bool
>>>>>>>>>> +nb_segs_is_invalid(unsigned int nb_segs) {
>>>>>>>>>> +    uint16_t ring_size;
>>>>>>>>>> +    uint16_t queue_id;
>>>>>>>>>> +    uint16_t port_id;
>>>>>>>>>> +    int ret;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +    RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(port_id) {
>>>>>>>>>> +        for (queue_id = 0; queue_id < nb_txq; queue_id++) {
>>>>>>>>>> +            ret = get_tx_ring_size(port_id, queue_id,
>>>>>>>>>> +&ring_size);
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +            if (ret)
>>>>>>>>>> +                return true;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +            if (ring_size < nb_segs) {
>>>>>>>>>> +                printf("nb segments per TX packets=%u >= "
>>>>>>>>>> +                       "TX queue(%u) ring_size=%u - ignored\n",
>>>>>>>>>> +                       nb_segs, queue_id, ring_size);
>>>>>>>>>> +                return true;
>>>>>>>>>> +            }
>>>>>>>>>> +        }
>>>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +    return false;
>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>      void
>>>>>>>>>>      set_tx_pkt_segments(unsigned *seg_lengths, unsigned nb_segs)
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>          uint16_t tx_pkt_len;
>>>>>>>>>>          unsigned i;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -    if (nb_segs >= (unsigned) nb_txd) {
>>>>>>>>>> -        printf("nb segments per TX packets=%u >= nb_txd=%u -
>>>>>>>>>> ignored\n",
>>>>>>>>>> -               nb_segs, (unsigned int) nb_txd);
>>>>>>>>>> +    if (nb_segs_is_invalid(nb_segs))
>>>>>>>>>>              return;
>>>>>>>>>> -    }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>          /*
>>>>>>>>>>           * Check that each segment length is greater or equal than
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.5
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Previous message: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] app/testpmd: remove restriction on txpkts set
Next message: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix segment number check
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the dev mailing list