Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] ether: Check VMDq RSS mode

[Vlad Zolotarov <vladz-RmZWMc9puTNJc61us3aD9laTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>]

On 01/13/15 03:50, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
>
> *From:*Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz-RmZWMc9puTNJc61us3aD9laTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2015 9:59 PM
> *To:* Ouyang, Changchun; dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.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-RmZWMc9puTNJc61us3aD9laTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org]
>     *Sent:* Friday, January 09, 2015 9:50 PM
>     *To:* Ouyang, Changchun; dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org <mailto:dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.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-RmZWMc9puTNJc61us3aD9laTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org]
>
>             Sent: Friday, January 9, 2015 2:49 AM
>
>             To: Ouyang, Changchun;dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org  <mailto:dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.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@intel.com>  <mailto:changchun.ouyang-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>
>                       
>
>                     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
>