[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
Vlad Zolotarov
vladz at cloudius-systems.com
Tue Jan 13 10:00:08 CET 2015
On 01/13/15 03:50, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
>
> *From:*Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz at cloudius-systems.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2015 9:59 PM
> *To:* Ouyang, Changchun; dev at dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
>
> On 01/12/15 05:41, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
>
> *From:*Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz at cloudius-systems.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 09, 2015 9:50 PM
> *To:* Ouyang, Changchun; dev at dpdk.org <mailto:dev at dpdk.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
>
> On 01/09/15 07:54, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz at cloudius-systems.com]
>
> Sent: Friday, January 9, 2015 2:49 AM
>
> To: Ouyang, Changchun;dev at dpdk.org <mailto:dev at dpdk.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode
>
>
>
>
>
> On 01/08/15 11:19, Vlad Zolotarov wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/07/15 08:32, Ouyang Changchun wrote:
>
> Check mq mode for VMDq RSS, handle it correctly instead of returning
>
> an error; Also remove the limitation of per pool queue number has max
>
> value of 1, because the per pool queue number could be 2 or 4 if it
>
> is VMDq RSS mode;
>
>
>
> The number of rxq specified in config will determine the mq mode for
>
> VMDq RSS.
>
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Changchun Ouyang<changchun.ouyang at intel.com> <mailto:changchun.ouyang at intel.com>
>
>
>
> changes in v5:
>
> - Fix '<' issue, it should be '<=' to test rxq number;
>
> - Extract a function to remove the embeded switch-case statement.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 50
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
>
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>
> b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index 95f2ceb..8363e26 100644
>
> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>
> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>
> @@ -503,6 +503,31 @@ rte_eth_dev_tx_queue_config(struct
>
> rte_eth_dev
>
> *dev, uint16_t nb_queues)
>
> }
>
> static int
>
> +rte_eth_dev_check_vf_rss_rxq_num(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q)
>
> +{
>
> + struct rte_eth_dev *dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
>
> + switch (nb_rx_q) {
>
> + case 1:
>
> + case 2:
>
> + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active =
>
> + ETH_64_POOLS;
>
> + break;
>
> + case 4:
>
> + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active =
>
> + ETH_32_POOLS;
>
> + break;
>
> + default:
>
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> + }
>
> +
>
> + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = nb_rx_q;
>
> + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).def_pool_q_idx =
>
> + dev->pci_dev->max_vfs * nb_rx_q;
>
> +
>
> + return 0;
>
> +}
>
> +
>
> +static int
>
> rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q,
>
> uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>
> const struct rte_eth_conf *dev_conf)
>
> {
>
> @@ -510,8 +535,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id,
>
> uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>
> if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active != 0) {
>
> /* check multi-queue mode */
>
> - if ((dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_RSS) ||
>
> - (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB) ||
>
> + if ((dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB) ||
>
> (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_RX_DCB_RSS) ||
>
> (dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode == ETH_MQ_TX_DCB)) {
>
> /* SRIOV only works in VMDq enable mode */ @@ -525,7
>
> +549,6 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t
>
> nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>
> }
>
> switch (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode) {
>
> - case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS:
>
> case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB:
>
> case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB_RSS:
>
> /* DCB/RSS VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement yet */ @@
>
> -534,6 +557,25 @@ rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id,
>
> uint16_t
>
> nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>
> "unsupported VMDQ mq_mode rx %u\n",
>
> port_id, dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode);
>
> return (-EINVAL);
>
> + case ETH_MQ_RX_RSS:
>
> + PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8
>
> + " SRIOV active, "
>
> + "Rx mq mode is changed from:"
>
> + "mq_mode %u into VMDQ mq_mode %u\n",
>
> + port_id,
>
> + dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode,
>
> + dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode);
>
> + case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS:
>
> + dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode =
>
> ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS;
>
> + if (nb_rx_q <= RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool)
>
> + if (rte_eth_dev_check_vf_rss_rxq_num(port_id,
>
> nb_rx_q) != 0) {
>
> + PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%d"
>
> + " SRIOV active, invalid queue"
>
> + " number for VMDQ RSS\n",
>
> + port_id);
>
>
>
> Some nitpicking here: I'd add the allowed values descriptions to the
>
> error message. Something like: "invalid queue number for VMDQ RSS.
>
> Allowed values are 1, 2 or 4\n".
>
>
>
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> + }
>
> + break;
>
> default: /* ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_RX_NONE */
>
> /* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
>
> dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode =
>
> ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY; @@ -553,8 +595,6 @@
>
> rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q,
>
> uint16_t nb_tx_q,
>
> default: /* ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_TX_NONE */
>
> /* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
>
> dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.mq_mode =
>
> ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY;
>
> - if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1)
>
> - RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;
>
>
>
> I'm not sure u may just remove it. These lines originally belong to a
>
> different flow. Are u sure u can remove them like that? What if the
>
> mq_mode is ETH_MQ_RX_NONE and nb_q_per_pool has been initialized
>
> to 4
>
> or 8 in ixgbe_pf_host_init()?
>
>
>
> I misread the patch - these lines belong to the txmode.mq_mode switch case.
>
> I think it's ok to remove these really strange lines here. And when I look at it i
>
> think for the similar reasons the similar lines should be removed in the Rx
>
> case too: consider non-RSS case with MQ DCB Tx configuration.
>
>
>
> I search code in this function, only one place has
>
> " if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1)
>
> RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;"
>
>
>
> The only place is default branch, which is for rx_none, or vmdq_only mode,
>
>
> Here is a snippet of an rte_eth_dev_check_mq_mode() from the
> current master:
>
> switch (dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode) {
>
> case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_RSS:
>
> case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB:
>
> case ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_DCB_RSS:
>
> /* DCB/RSS VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement yet */
>
> PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8
>
> " SRIOV active, "
>
> "unsupported VMDQ mq_mode rx %u\n",
>
> port_id, dev_conf->rxmode.mq_mode);
>
> return (-EINVAL);
>
> default: /* ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_RX_NONE */
>
> /* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
>
> dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_RX_VMDQ_ONLY;
>
> *if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1) <---- This is one*
>
> * RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;*
>
> break;
>
> }
>
>
>
> switch (dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode) {
>
> case ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_DCB:
>
> /* DCB VMDQ in SRIOV mode, not implement yet */
>
> PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("ethdev port_id=%" PRIu8
>
> " SRIOV active, "
>
> "unsupported VMDQ mq_mode tx %u\n",
>
> port_id, dev_conf->txmode.mq_mode);
>
> return (-EINVAL);
>
> default: /* ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY or ETH_MQ_TX_NONE */
>
> /* if nothing mq mode configure, use default scheme */
>
> dev->data->dev_conf.txmode.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_TX_VMDQ_ONLY;
>
> if (RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool > 1) <------ This is two. This is what your patch is removing
>
> RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1;
>
> break;
>
> }
>
>
>
>
> Changchun: yes you are correct, what I mean in my last response is
> that only one place AFTER my removal, so there are 2 places before
> my removal.
> no controversial here.
>
>
>
>
> We don't need remove this, as it should assign as 1 because it did use 1 queue per pool.
>
>
> And why is that? Just because RSS was not enabled? And what if a
> user wants multiple Tx queues? Mode 1100b of MRQE for instance?
>
> Changchun: I can explain why I need this change(remove the second
> place) here,
>
>
> I understood why u needed it in the first place. I just say that for
> exactly the same reasons u need to remove the "first place" too. ;)
>
> Changchun: then I will try to explain why I can’t remove the first place J
>
> When the rx mode is ETH_MQ_RX_NONE and tx mode is ETH_MQ_TX_NONE,
>
> The function ixgbe_pf_host_init still set the nb_q_per_pool into 2 or
> 4 or 8 according to max vf num,
>
> (actually at that point, it has no knowledge of what is the rx and tx
> configuration value, so have to just set
>
> an estimated (and not so accurate) value according to the max vf num)
>
> then in the check_mq_mode function, need further refine this value
> according to a few factors:
>
> sriov.active, and rxmode.mq_mode.
>
> When it finds the rx mode is RX_NONE, and the nb_q_per_pool is larger
> than 1, then it should refine to 1.
>
> So if I remove the first place, VMDQ_RSS case works well, but I break
> the case of RX_NONE.
>
> So I think we can’t treat rx path and tx path in absolutely same way
> here, i.e. if you add it in the first place(rx path) then you need
> also add it in the second place(tx path)
>
> Vice versa,
>
> that’s my understanding J
>
And now consider the case when rx_mode == RSS_NONE (since user has
configured only a single Rx queue) and tx_mode == TX_DCB (user has
configured 4 Tx queues and requested the above Tx mode). After your
patch the nb_q_per_pool will still be set to 1 while it should have
remained 4 because u want a pool to support 4 queues (MRQC.MRQE ==
1010b) but u will configure the PSRTYPE[n].RQPL for this pool to 0.
> Thanks
>
> Changchun
>
More information about the dev
mailing list