[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] app/testpmd: fix testpmd doesn't show RSS hash offload

[Andrew Rybchenko]

On 7/19/21 7:18 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 7/19/2021 10:55 AM, Wang, Jie1X wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 4:52 PM
>>> To: Li, Xiaoyun <xiaoyun.li at intel.com>; Wang, Jie1X <jie1x.wang at intel.com>;
>>> dev at dpdk.org
>>> Cc: andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru; stable at dpdk.org
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] app/testpmd: fix testpmd doesn't show
>>> RSS hash offload
>>>
>>> On 7/16/2021 9:30 AM, Li, Xiaoyun wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: stable <stable-bounces at dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Li, Xiaoyun
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 12:54
>>>>> To: Wang, Jie1X <jie1x.wang at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
>>>>> Cc: andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru; stable at dpdk.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] app/testpmd: fix testpmd
>>>>> doesn't show RSS hash offload
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Wang, Jie1X <jie1x.wang at intel.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 19:57
>>>>>> To: dev at dpdk.org
>>>>>> Cc: Li, Xiaoyun <xiaoyun.li at intel.com>;
>>>>>> andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru; Wang, Jie1X <jie1x.wang at intel.com>;
>>>>>> stable at dpdk.org
>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH v4] app/testpmd: fix testpmd doesn't show RSS hash
>>>>>> offload
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The driver may change offloads info into dev->data->dev_conf in
>>>>>> dev_configure which may cause port->dev_conf and port->rx_conf
>>>>>> contain
>>>>> outdated values.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch updates the offloads info if it changes to fix this issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: ce8d561418d4 ("app/testpmd: add port configuration settings")
>>>>>> Cc: stable at dpdk.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jie Wang <jie1x.wang at intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> v4: delete the whitespace at the end of the line.
>>>>>> v3:
>>>>>>   - check and update the "offloads" of "port->dev_conf.rx/txmode".
>>>>>>   - update the commit log.
>>>>>> v2: copy "rx/txmode.offloads", instead of copying the entire struct
>>>>>> "dev->data-
>>>>>>> dev_conf.rx/txmode".
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>   1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun.li at intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> Although I gave my ack, app shouldn't touch rte_eth_devices which this patch
>>> does. Usually, testpmd should only call function like
>>> eth_dev_info_get_print_err().
>>>> But dev_info doesn't contain the info dev->data->dev_conf which the driver
>>> modifies.
>>>>
>>>> Probably we need a better fix.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agree, an application accessing directly to 'rte_eth_devices' is sign of something
>>> missing/wrong.
>>>
>>> In this case there is no way for application to know what is the configured
>>> offload settings per port and queue. Which is missing part I think.
>>>
>>> As you said normally we get data from PMD mainly via 'rte_eth_dev_info_get()',
>>> which is an overloaded function, it provides many different things, like driver
>>> default values, limitations, current config/status, capabilities etc...
>>>
>>> So I think we can do a few things:
>>> 1) Add current offload configuration to 'rte_eth_dev_info_get()', so application
>>> can get it and use it.
>>> The advantage is this API already called many places, many times, so there is a
>>> big chance that application already have this information when it needs.
>>> Disadvantage is, as mentioned above the API already big and messy, making it
>>> bigger makes more error prone and makes easier to break ABI.
>>>
>> I prefer to choose the 1st suggestion.
>>
>> Normally PMD gets data via 'rte_eth_dev_info_get()'. When we add offloads configuration
>> to it, we can get offloads as same as getting other info.
>>
> 
> Most probably it is easier to implement 1), I see your point but as said before
> I think 'rte_eth_dev_info_get()' is already messy and I am worried to make it
> even bigger.

IMHO, (1) is not an option.

> I prefer option 2).

I'm not sure that API function for each config parameter is an option as
well. We should find a balance. May be I'd add something like
rte_eth_dev_get_conf(uint16_t port_id, const struct rte_eth_conf **conf)
which returns a pointer to up-to-date configuration. I.e. option (3).

The tricky part here is to ensure that all specific API which modifies
various bits of the configuration updates dev_conf.

> 
> @Thomas, @Andrew, what do you think?
> 
> 
>>> 2) Add a new API to get configured offload information, so a specific API for it.
>>>
>>> 3) Get a more generic API to get configured config (dev_conf) which will cover
>>> offloads too.
>>> Disadvantage can be leaking out too many internal config to user unintentionally.

I don't understand it. dev_conf is provided by user on
rte_eth_dev_configure().