[dpdk-users] DPDK 20.11 MLX5 testpmd tx_pp 'WQE index ignore feature is required for packet pacing'

[Slava Ovsiienko]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 18:31
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo at nvidia.com>
> Cc: Alessandro Pagani <alessandropagani.90 at gmail.com>; users at dpdk.org;
> Asaf Penso <asafp at nvidia.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] DPDK 20.11 MLX5 testpmd tx_pp 'WQE index ignore
> feature is required for packet pacing'
> 
> 11/12/2020 17:19, Slava Ovsiienko:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > > 09/12/2020 17:03, Alessandro Pagani:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I am trying to run dpdk testpmd with Mellanox ConnectX4 Lx (mlx5
> driver).
> > > >
> > > > I am specifying the tx_pp parameter to provide the packet send
> > > > scheduling on mbuf timestamps, but the testpmd fails with the
> > > > following
> > > error:
> > > [...]
> > > > EAL: Probe PCI driver: mlx5_pci (15b3:1015) device: 0000:3b:00.0
> >
> > This is ConnectX-4LX (DevID is 1015), it does not support scheduling.
> > Tx scheduling is supported since ConnectX-6DX.
> >
> > > > (socket 0)
> > > > mlx5_pci: No available register for Sampler.
> > > > mlx5_pci: WQE index ignore feature is required for packet pacing
> > > > mlx5_pci: probe of PCI device 0000:3b:00.0 aborted after
> > > > encountering an
> > > > error: No such device
> > > > common_mlx5: Failed to load driver = mlx5_pci.
> > > >
> > > > EAL: Requested device 0000:3b:00.0 cannot be used
> > > [...]
> > > > The error messages suggest that "WQE index ignore feature is
> > > > required for packet pacing".
> > > >
> > > > Anyone knows the reason of this error and how to solve it?
> > >
> > > I think it means your device does not support this feature.
> > > But I realize it is not documented here:
> >
> > Yes, indeed. I'll provide the patch, thank you for noticing that.
> 
> I think we should also improve the error message to something like "not
> supported on this device".
> 
In my opinion, we should not depend on model index, but rather on
what capabilities firmware reports, this approach provides much more flexibility
and accuracy. We do not provide model index blind check for any other feature(s).

With best regards,
Slava