[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: add support for forced ethernet speed
Andrew Boyer
aboyer at pensando.io
Fri Feb 26 17:18:14 CET 2021
> On Feb 26, 2021, at 6:21 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/26/2021 6:43 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> On 2/25/21 9:25 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2021 7:18 PM, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
>>>> Add support for forced ethernet speed setting.
>>>> Currently testpmd tries to configure the Ethernet port in autoneg mode.
>>>> It is not possible to set the Ethernet port to a specific speed while
>>>> starting testpmd. In some cases capability to configure a forced speed
>>>> for the Ethernet port during initialization may be necessary. This patch
>>>> tries to add this support.
>>>>
>>>> The patch assumes full duplex setting and does not attempt to change
>>>> that.
>>>> So speeds like 10M, 100M are not configurable using this method.
>>>>
>>>> The command line to configure a forced speed of 10G:
>>>> dpdk-testpmd -c 0xff -- -i --eth-link-speed 10000
>>>>
>>>> The command line to configure a forced speed of 50G:
>>>> dpdk-testpmd -c 0xff -- -i --eth-link-speed 50000
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde at broadcom.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> app/test-pmd/parameters.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 4 +++
>>>> app/test-pmd/testpmd.h | 1 +
>>>> doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/run_app.rst | 11 +++++++
>>>> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> Can you also update the release notes to document the new parameter?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/parameters.c b/app/test-pmd/parameters.c
>>>> index c8acd5d1b7..e10f7d38fb 100644
>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/parameters.c
>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/parameters.c
>>>> @@ -224,6 +224,7 @@ usage(char* progname)
>>>> printf(" --hairpin-mode=0xXX: bitmask set the hairpin port
>>>> mode.\n "
>>>> " 0x10 - explicit Tx rule, 0x02 - hairpin ports paired\n"
>>>> " 0x01 - hairpin ports loop, 0x00 - hairpin port
>>>> self\n");
>>>> + printf(" --eth-link-speed: forced link speed.\n");
>>>> }
>>>> #ifdef RTE_LIB_CMDLINE
>>>> @@ -485,6 +486,41 @@ parse_event_printing_config(const char *optarg,
>>>> int enable)
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> +static int
>>>> +parse_link_speed(int n)
>>>> +{
>>>> + uint32_t speed;
>>>> +
>>>> + switch (n) {
>>>
>>> OK to not support "10M, 100M", not sure if anybody really uses them, but
>>> what do you think checking them and return an error?
>>>
>>>> + case 1000:
>>>> + speed = ETH_LINK_SPEED_1G;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 10000:
>>>> + speed = ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 25000:
>>>> + speed = ETH_LINK_SPEED_25G;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 40000:
>>>> + speed = ETH_LINK_SPEED_40G;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 50000:
>>>> + speed = ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 100000:
>>>> + speed = ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 200000:
>>>> + speed = ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + default:
>>>> + speed = ETH_LINK_SPEED_AUTONEG;
>>>> + break;
>>>
>>> Isn't this function to set a fixed link speed, why falling back to autoneg?
>>>
>>> Also shouldn't this function set 'ETH_LINK_SPEED_FIXED' too?
>> It should. Previous time I've tried to fix corresponding
>> bug in CLI commands, it ended up with rollback because
>> of Intel drivers do not handle it correctly.
>> See "app/testpmd: set fixed flag for exact link speed" and
>> corresponding revert.
>
> Thanks for the reminder Andrew, you have a good memory :)
> For reference: http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20190507100928.pOyue5JiSaPL-NSHiueAU3HlgisgF9bYynJGpTjyvMw@z/
>
> It seems that patch reverted with the pressure of the release, what do you think applying it again while we have enough time to fix the PMDs before release?
>
> From previous discussions, long term actions listed as:
> "
> 1) Implement 'fixed' link speed support in the missing drivers.
> 2) Send a new version of the testpmd patch with a "fixed" argument, so that we
> can support all three above
> "
>
> Not sure having (2) explicitly is required, we have already "auto" speed, not having it implies the fixed speed.
> So we can just re-apply your old patch.
Please also see the message I sent back in November: http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/F041DE53-0ABF-4A0A-974A-16167967ABD5@pensando.io/
I added the FIXED flag to fix my local tree and found that it causes intermittent failures in link_bonding_autotest. (In version 20.02, haven’t tested in latest branch.)
-Other Andrew
More information about the dev
mailing list