[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/4] net/softnic: add TM hierarchy related ops

[Lu, Wenzhuo]

Hi Jasvinder,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jasvinder Singh
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 5:10 PM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
> <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; thomas at monjalon.net
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/4] net/softnic: add TM hierarchy related ops
> 
> Implement ethdev TM hierarchy related APIs in SoftNIC PMD.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cristian Dumitrescu <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jasvinder Singh <jasvinder.singh at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/softnic/rte_eth_softnic_internals.h |   41 +
>  drivers/net/softnic/rte_eth_softnic_tm.c        | 2776
> ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 2813 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)


> +
> +static uint32_t
> +tm_node_subport_id(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct tm_node
> *subport_node)
> +{
> +	struct pmd_internals *p = dev->data->dev_private;
> +	struct tm_node_list *nl = &p->soft.tm.h.nodes;
> +	struct tm_node *ns;
> +	uint32_t subport_id;
> +
> +	subport_id = 0;
> +	TAILQ_FOREACH(ns, nl, node) {
> +		if (ns->level != TM_NODE_LEVEL_SUBPORT)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		if (ns->node_id == subport_node->node_id)
> +			return subport_id;
> +
> +		subport_id++;
> +	}
> +
> +	return UINT32_MAX;
UINT32_MAX means invalid number, right? Better define a specific MACRO for the invalid number in case you may not want to use 0xff.. or uint32.
The same suggestion for the below functions.


> +static int
> +shaper_profile_check(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> +	uint32_t shaper_profile_id,
> +	struct rte_tm_shaper_params *profile,
> +	struct rte_tm_error *error)
> +{
> +	struct tm_shaper_profile *sp;
> +
> +	/* Shaper profile ID must not be NONE. */
> +	if (shaper_profile_id == RTE_TM_SHAPER_PROFILE_ID_NONE)
> +		return -rte_tm_error_set(error,
> +			EINVAL,
> +			RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_SHAPER_PROFILE_ID,
> +			NULL,
> +			rte_strerror(EINVAL));
> +
> +	/* Shaper profile must not exist. */
> +	sp = tm_shaper_profile_search(dev, shaper_profile_id);
> +	if (sp)
> +		return -rte_tm_error_set(error,
> +			EEXIST,
> +			RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_SHAPER_PROFILE_ID,
> +			NULL,
> +			rte_strerror(EEXIST));
> +
> +	/* Profile must not be NULL. */
> +	if (profile == NULL)
> +		return -rte_tm_error_set(error,
> +			EINVAL,
> +			RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_SHAPER_PROFILE,
> +			NULL,
> +			rte_strerror(EINVAL));
A slight suggestion. We can do the easiest check at first.


> +
> +/* Traffic manager shaper profile add */
> +static int
> +pmd_tm_shaper_profile_add(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> +	uint32_t shaper_profile_id,
> +	struct rte_tm_shaper_params *profile,
> +	struct rte_tm_error *error)
> +{
> +	struct pmd_internals *p = dev->data->dev_private;
> +	struct tm_shaper_profile_list *spl = &p->soft.tm.h.shaper_profiles;
> +	struct tm_shaper_profile *sp;
> +	int status;
> +
> +	/* Check input params */
> +	status = shaper_profile_check(dev, shaper_profile_id, profile, error);
> +	if (status)
> +		return status;
> +
> +	/* Memory allocation */
> +	sp = calloc(1, sizeof(struct tm_shaper_profile));
Just curious, why not use rte_zmalloc?

> +	if (sp == NULL)
> +		return -rte_tm_error_set(error,
> +			ENOMEM,
> +			RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED,
> +			NULL,
> +			rte_strerror(ENOMEM));
> +
> +	/* Fill in */
> +	sp->shaper_profile_id = shaper_profile_id;
> +	memcpy(&sp->params, profile, sizeof(sp->params));
> +
> +	/* Add to list */
> +	TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(spl, sp, node);
> +	p->soft.tm.h.n_shaper_profiles++;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

> +
> +static struct tm_node *
> +tm_shared_shaper_get_tc(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> +	struct tm_shared_shaper *ss)
> +{
> +	struct pmd_internals *p = dev->data->dev_private;
> +	struct tm_node_list *nl = &p->soft.tm.h.nodes;
> +	struct tm_node *n;
> +
> +	TAILQ_FOREACH(n, nl, node) {
> +		if ((n->level != TM_NODE_LEVEL_TC) ||
> +			(n->params.n_shared_shapers == 0) ||
> +			(n->params.shared_shaper_id[0] != ss-
> >shared_shaper_id))
According to node_add_check_tc, only one shared shaper supported, right? Better adding some comments here?

> +			continue;
> +
> +		return n;
> +	}
> +
> +	return NULL;
> +}



> +
> +static void
> +pipe_profile_build(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> +	struct tm_node *np,
> +	struct rte_sched_pipe_params *pp)
> +{
> +	struct pmd_internals *p = dev->data->dev_private;
> +	struct tm_hierarchy *h = &p->soft.tm.h;
> +	struct tm_node_list *nl = &h->nodes;
> +	struct tm_node *nt, *nq;
> +
> +	memset(pp, 0, sizeof(*pp));
> +
> +	/* Pipe */
> +	pp->tb_rate = np->shaper_profile->params.peak.rate;
> +	pp->tb_size = np->shaper_profile->params.peak.size;
> +
> +	/* Traffic Class (TC) */
> +	pp->tc_period = 40;
40 means? A MACRO is better?


> +
> +static int
> +pipe_profile_free_exists(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> +	uint32_t *pipe_profile_id)
> +{
> +	struct pmd_internals *p = dev->data->dev_private;
> +	struct tm_params *t = &p->soft.tm.params;
> +
> +	if (t->n_pipe_profiles < RTE_SCHED_PIPE_PROFILES_PER_PORT) {
> +		*pipe_profile_id = t->n_pipe_profiles;
> +		return 1;
Returning true or false is easier to understand?


Also the same concern of the naming as patch 3.