[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/6] app/testpmd: remove restriction on txpkts set

Ferruh Yigit ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Wed Sep 23 18:59:39 CEST 2020


On 9/23/2020 12:57 PM, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
> Hi, Ferruh Yigit
> 
> On 2020/9/23 11:14, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
>> Hi, Ferruh Yigit
>>
>> On 2020/9/22 22:51, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2020 11:47 AM, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
>>>> 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>
>>>> ---
>>>>   app/test-pmd/config.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>>   1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>> index 4e33208..882de2d 100644
>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>> @@ -2984,17 +2984,51 @@ show_tx_pkt_segments(void)
>>>>       printf("Split packet: %s\n", split);
>>>>   }
>>>>   +static bool
>>>> +nb_segs_is_invalid(unsigned int nb_segs)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    uint16_t port_id;
>>>> +
>>>> +    RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(port_id) {
>>>> +        struct rte_port *port = &ports[port_id];
>>>> +        uint16_t ring_size;
>>>> +        uint16_t queue_id;
>>>> +
>>>> +        /*
>>>> +         * 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.
>>>> +         */
>>>> +        for (queue_id = 0; queue_id < nb_txq; queue_id++) {
>>>> +            if (port->nb_tx_desc[queue_id])
>>>> +                ring_size = port->nb_tx_desc[queue_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;
>>>> +
>>>> +            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;
>>>> +            }
>>>> +        }
>>>
>>> What do you think calling 'rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get()' & 
>>> 'rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get()' to get the 'nb_desc'?
>>
>> Currently not all PMD driver implement the .rxq_info_get and
>>
>> .txq_info_get hook function. If calling rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get
>>
>> return -ENOSTUP, we still need to obtain the ring_size in this way.
>>
> If calling rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get function get ring_size, because not 
> all PMDS implement the relevant the related hook function, we need to
> check the return value and if the return value is -ENOSTUP, we must 
> obtain the ring_size in this way.
> Do you prefer this method, right?
 >

Do we really need this check?

What about verifying 'ring_size' if 'rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get()' 
returns a valid info, if not ignore the check?

> 
> Hopes for your suggestion.
> Thanks, Xavier
>>
>> Thanks, Xavier



More information about the dev mailing list