DPDK-dev Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	Dekel Peled <dekelp@mellanox.com>,
	"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
	"Kovacevic, Marko" <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
	"nhorman@tuxdriver.com" <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	 "ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com" <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
	"somnath.kotur@broadcom.com" <somnath.kotur@broadcom.com>,
	"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
	"xuanziyang2@huawei.com" <xuanziyang2@huawei.com>,
	"cloud.wangxiaoyun@huawei.com" <cloud.wangxiaoyun@huawei.com>,
	"zhouguoyang@huawei.com" <zhouguoyang@huawei.com>,
	"Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
	Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>,
	Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>,
	"rmody@marvell.com" <rmody@marvell.com>,
	"shshaikh@marvell.com" <shshaikh@marvell.com>,
	"maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>,
	"Bie, Tiwei" <tiwei.bie@intel.com>,
	"Wang, Zhihong" <zhihong.wang@intel.com>,
	"yongwang@vmware.com" <yongwang@vmware.com>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"arybchenko@solarflare.com" <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
	"Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
	"Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] ethdev: support API to set max LRO packet size
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 18:26:35 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR0502MB4019D4EBA4C1FE79AFECEC2ED27A0@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725801A8C833C4@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com>

Hi Konstantin

From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 6:29 PM
> To: Dekel Peled <dekelp@mellanox.com>; Matan Azrad
> <matan@mellanox.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Mcnamara,
> John <john.mcnamara@intel.com>; Kovacevic, Marko
> <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>; nhorman@tuxdriver.com;
> ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com; somnath.kotur@broadcom.com; Burakov,
> Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>; xuanziyang2@huawei.com;
> cloud.wangxiaoyun@huawei.com; zhouguoyang@huawei.com; Lu, Wenzhuo
> <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>; Slava
> Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; rmody@marvell.com;
> shshaikh@marvell.com; maxime.coquelin@redhat.com; Bie, Tiwei
> <tiwei.bie@intel.com>; Wang, Zhihong <zhihong.wang@intel.com>;
> yongwang@vmware.com; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>;
> arybchenko@solarflare.com; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>;
> Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] ethdev: support API to set max LRO
> packet size
> 
> 
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> On 11/7/2019 12:35 PM, Dekel Peled wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>> @@ -1266,6 +1286,18 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> 	RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN;
> > > > > > > >>>>>  	}
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> +	/*
> > > > > > > >>>>> +	 * If LRO is enabled, check that the maximum
> > > aggregated
> > > > > > > packet
> > > > > > > >>>>> +	 * size is supported by the configured device.
> > > > > > > >>>>> +	 */
> > > > > > > >>>>> +	if (dev_conf->rxmode.offloads &
> > > > > > > DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO) {
> > > > > > > >>>>> +		ret = check_lro_pkt_size(
> > > > > > > >>>>> +				port_id, dev_conf-
> > > > > > > >>>>> rxmode.max_lro_pkt_size,
> > > > > > > >>>>> +				dev_info.max_lro_pkt_size);
> > > > > > > >>>>> +		if (ret != 0)
> > > > > > > >>>>> +			goto rollback;
> > > > > > > >>>>> +	}
> > > > > > > >>>>> +
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> This check forces applications that enable LRO to
> > > > > > > >>>> provide
> > > > > > > >> 'max_lro_pkt_size'
> > > > > > > >>>> config value.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Yes.(we can break an API, we noticed it)
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I am not talking about API/ABI breakage, that part is OK.
> > > > > > > >> With this check, if the application requested LRO offload
> > > > > > > >> but not provided 'max_lro_pkt_size' value, device
> > > > > > > >> configuration will
> > > fail.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > > >> Can there be a case application is good with whatever the
> > > > > > > >> PMD can support as max?
> > > > > > > > Yes can be - you know, we can do everything we want but it
> > > > > > > > is better to be
> > > > > > > consistent:
> > > > > > > > Due to the fact of Max rx pkt len field is mandatory for
> > > > > > > > JUMBO offload, max
> > > > > > > lro pkt len should be mandatory for LRO offload.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So your question is actually why both, non-lro packets and
> > > > > > > > LRO packets max
> > > > > > > size are mandatory...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think it should be important values for net applications
> > > management.
> > > > > > > > Also good for mbuf size managements.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> - Why it is mandatory now, how it was working before if
> > > > > > > >>>> it is mandatory value?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> It is the same as max_rx_pkt_len which is mandatory for
> > > > > > > >>> jumbo frame
> > > > > > > >> offload.
> > > > > > > >>> So now, when the user configures a LRO offload he must
> > > > > > > >>> to set max lro pkt
> > > > > > > >> len.
> > > > > > > >>> We don't want to confuse the user here with the max rx
> > > > > > > >>> pkt len
> > > > > > > >> configurations and behaviors, they should be with same logic.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> This parameter defines well the LRO behavior.
> > > > > > > >>> Before this, each PMD took its own interpretation to
> > > > > > > >>> what should be the
> > > > > > > >> maximum size for LRO aggregated packets.
> > > > > > > >>> Now, the user must say what is his intension, and the
> > > > > > > >>> ethdev can limit it
> > > > > > > >> according to the device capability.
> > > > > > > >>> By this way, also, the PMD can organize\optimize its
> > > > > > > >>> data-path
> > > more.
> > > > > > > >>> Also, the application can create different mempools for
> > > > > > > >>> LRO queues to
> > > > > > > >> allow bigger packet receiving for LRO traffic.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> - What happens if PMD doesn't provide
> > > > > > > >>>> 'max_lro_pkt_size', so it is
> > > > > '0'?
> > > > > > > >>> Yes, you can see the feature description Dekel added.
> > > > > > > >>> This patch also updates all the PMDs support an LRO for
> > > > > > > >>> non-0
> > > value.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Of course I can see the updates Matan, my point is "What
> > > > > > > >> happens if PMD doesn't provide 'max_lro_pkt_size'",
> > > > > > > >> 1) There is no check for it right, so it is acceptable?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is check.
> > > > > > > > If the capability is 0, any non-zero configuration will fail.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> 2) Are we making this filed mandatory to provide for
> > > > > > > >> PMDs, it is easy to make new fields mandatory for PMDs
> > > > > > > >> but is this really
> > > > > necessary?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, for consistence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> as same as max rx pkt len, no?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> - What do you think setting 'max_lro_pkt_size' config
> > > > > > > >>>> value to what PMD provided if application doesn't provide
> it?
> > > > > > > >>> Same answers as above.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> If application doesn't care the value, as it has been
> > > > > > > >> till now, and not provided explicit 'max_lro_pkt_size',
> > > > > > > >> why not ethdev level use the value provided by PMD instead
> of failing?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, same question we can ask on max rx pkt len.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looks like the packet size is very important value which
> > > > > > > > should be set by
> > > > > > > the application.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Previous applications have no option to configure it, so
> > > > > > > > they haven't
> > > > > > > configure it, (probably cover it somehow) I think it is our
> > > > > > > miss to supply this info.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's do it in same way as we do max rx pkt len (as this
> > > > > > > > patch main
> > > idea).
> > > > > > > > Later, we can change both to other meaning.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it is not a good reason to introduce a new mandatory
> > > > > > > config option for application because of 'max_rx_pkt_len' does it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is mandatory only if LRO offload is configured.
> > > > >
> > > > > So max_rx_pkt_len will remain max size of one packet, while
> > > > > max_lro_len will be max accumulate size for each LRO session?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > > BTW, I think that for ixgbe max lro is RTE_IPV4_MAX_PKT_LEN.
> > > >
> > > > Please see my change in drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c.
> > > > Change to RTE_IPV4_MAX_PKT_LEN?
> > > >
> > > > > ixgbe_vf, as I remember, doesn’t support LRO at all.
> > > >
> > > > Please see my change in drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_vf_representor.c
> > > > Remove it?
> > >
> > > Yes, please for both.
> >
> > Will change in v5.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Will it work, if:
> > > > > > > - If application doesn't provide this value, use the PMD max
> > > > > >
> > > > > > May cause a problem if the mbuf size is not enough for the PMD
> > > maximum.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another question, what will happen if PMD will ignore that value
> > > > > and will generate packets bigger then requested?
> > > >
> > > > PMD should use this value and not ignore it.
> > >
> > > Hmm, ok but this patch updates mxl driver only...
> > > I suppose you expect other PMD maintainers to do the job for their
> > > PMDs, right?
> > > If so, are they aware (and agree) for this new hard requirement and
> > > changes required?
> > > Again what PMD should do if it can't support exact value?
> > > Let say user asked max_lro_size=20KB but PMD can do only 16KB or
> 24KB?
> > > Should it fail, or round to smallest, or ...?
> > >
> > > Actually I wonder, should it really be a hard requirement or more
> > > like a guidance to PMD?
> > > Why app needs and *exact* value for LRO size?
> >
> > The exact value should be configured to HW as LRO session limit.
> 
> But if the HW can't support this exact value, see the example above?
> In fact, shouldn't we allow PMD to forbid user to configure max LRO size?
> Let say if in dev_info max_lro_size==0, then PMD doesn't support LRO size
> configuration at all.
> That way PMDs who do support LRO, but don't want to (can't to) support
> configurable LRO size will stay untouched.

Each HW should support packet size limitation no matter if it is LRO packet or not:
How does the PMD limit the packet size for max rx packet len conf?
How does the PMD limit the packet size for the mbuf size?
 


  reply index

Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-05  8:40 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] " Dekel Peled
2019-11-05  8:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] ethdev: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-05 12:39   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-05 13:09     ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-05 14:18     ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-05 14:27       ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-05 14:51         ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-05  8:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] net/mlx5: use " Dekel Peled
2019-11-05  8:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] app/testpmd: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-05  9:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] support " Matan Azrad
2019-11-06 11:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 " Dekel Peled
2019-11-06 11:34   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-06 12:26     ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-06 12:39       ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-06 11:34   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] net/mlx5: use " Dekel Peled
2019-11-06 11:34   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/3] app/testpmd: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-06 12:35     ` Iremonger, Bernard
2019-11-06 13:14       ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-06 14:28   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] support " Dekel Peled
2019-11-06 14:28     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] ethdev: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-07 11:57       ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Shahed Shaikh
2019-11-07 12:18         ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-06 14:28     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/3] net/mlx5: use " Dekel Peled
2019-11-06 14:28     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/3] app/testpmd: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-06 16:41     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] support " Iremonger, Bernard
2019-11-07  6:10       ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-07 12:35     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 " Dekel Peled
2019-11-07 12:35       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] ethdev: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-07 20:15         ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-11-08  6:54           ` Matan Azrad
2019-11-08  9:19             ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-11-08 10:10               ` Matan Azrad
2019-11-08 11:37                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-11-08 11:56                   ` Matan Azrad
2019-11-08 12:51                     ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-11-08 16:11                       ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-08 16:53                         ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-11-09 18:20                       ` Matan Azrad
2019-11-10 23:40                         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-11  8:01                           ` Matan Azrad
2019-11-12 18:31                             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-11 11:15                         ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-11-11 11:33                           ` Matan Azrad
2019-11-11 12:21                             ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-11-11 13:32                               ` Matan Azrad
2019-11-08 13:11                     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-08 14:10                       ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-08 14:52                         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-08 16:08                           ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-08 16:28                             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-09 18:26                               ` Matan Azrad [this message]
2019-11-10 22:51                                 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-11  6:53                                   ` Matan Azrad
2019-11-07 12:35       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/3] net/mlx5: use " Dekel Peled
2019-11-08  9:12         ` Slava Ovsiienko
2019-11-08  9:23           ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-11-07 12:35       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/3] app/testpmd: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-07 14:20         ` Iremonger, Bernard
2019-11-07 20:25         ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-11-08  6:56           ` Matan Azrad
2019-11-08 13:58           ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-08  6:28       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/3] support " Matan Azrad
2019-11-08 16:42       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 " Dekel Peled
2019-11-08 16:42         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] ethdev: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-10 23:07           ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-11  7:40             ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-08 16:42         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] net/mlx5: use " Dekel Peled
2019-11-08 16:42         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] app/testpmd: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-10 23:11           ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-11  7:40             ` Dekel Peled
2019-11-08 23:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6] ethdev: add " Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-10 22:47   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-11 17:47   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/3] support API to set " Dekel Peled
2019-11-11 17:47     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/3] ethdev: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-12  0:46       ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-11-11 17:47     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 2/3] net/mlx5: use " Dekel Peled
2019-11-11 17:47     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 3/3] app/testpmd: " Dekel Peled
2019-11-12  0:46       ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-11-12  0:47     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/3] support " Ferruh Yigit

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=AM0PR0502MB4019D4EBA4C1FE79AFECEC2ED27A0@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=matan@mellanox.com \
    --cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
    --cc=cloud.wangxiaoyun@huawei.com \
    --cc=dekelp@mellanox.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=marko.kovacevic@intel.com \
    --cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
    --cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=rmody@marvell.com \
    --cc=shahafs@mellanox.com \
    --cc=shshaikh@marvell.com \
    --cc=somnath.kotur@broadcom.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=tiwei.bie@intel.com \
    --cc=viacheslavo@mellanox.com \
    --cc=wenzhuo.lu@intel.com \
    --cc=xuanziyang2@huawei.com \
    --cc=yongwang@vmware.com \
    --cc=zhihong.wang@intel.com \
    --cc=zhouguoyang@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK-dev Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/dpdk-dev/0 dpdk-dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dpdk-dev dpdk-dev/ https://lore.kernel.org/dpdk-dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dpdk-dev

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git