From: Joergen Andreasen <joergen.andreasen@microchip.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
"James Hogan" <jhogan@kernel.org>, <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Joergen Andreasen <joergen.andreasen@microchip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: mscc: ocelot: Implement port policers via tc command
Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 13:23:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190503112327.he2unkak7rhm6ajk@soft-dev16> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190502123245.GB9844@lunn.ch>
Hi Andrew,
The 05/02/2019 14:32, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> External E-Mail
>
>
> Hi Joergen
>
> > +
> > +#define MSCC_RC(expr) \
> > + do { \
> > + int __rc__ = (expr); \
> > + if (__rc__ < 0) \
> > + return __rc__; \
> > + } \
> > + while (0)
>
> I'm sure checkpatch warned about this. A return inside a macros is a
> bad idea. I inherited code doing this, and broke it when adding
> locking, because it was not obvious there was a return.
>
I saw the warning but I assumed that it wasn't a problem in this small context.
The macro will be removed in v2.
> > +
> > +/* The following two functions do the same as in iproute2 */
> > +#define TIME_UNITS_PER_SEC 1000000
> > +static unsigned int tc_core_tick2time(unsigned int tick)
> > +{
> > + return (tick * (u32)PSCHED_TICKS2NS(1)) / 1000;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static unsigned int tc_calc_xmitsize(u64 rate, unsigned int ticks)
> > +{
> > + return div_u64(rate * tc_core_tick2time(ticks), TIME_UNITS_PER_SEC);
> > +}
>
> Should these but put somewhere others can use them?
>
It would be nice to put them in a more public place, but I am in doubt where to
put them and what to call them.
Maybe they belong in the new file: include/net/tc_act/tc_police.h.
Would that be ok?
> > +
> > +enum mscc_qos_rate_mode {
> > + MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_DISABLED, /* Policer/shaper disabled */
> > + MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_LINE, /* Measure line rate in kbps incl. IPG */
> > + MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_DATA, /* Measures data rate in kbps excl. IPG */
> > + MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_FRAME, /* Measures frame rate in fps */
> > + __MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_END,
> > + NUM_MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE = __MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_END,
> > + MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_MAX = __MSCC_QOS_RATE_MODE_END - 1,
> > +};
> > +
> > +/* Round x divided by y to nearest integer. x and y are integers */
> > +#define MSCC_ROUNDING_DIVISION(x, y) (((x) + ((y) / 2)) / (y))
>
> linux/kernel.h defines DIV_ROUND_UP(). Maybe add DIV_ROUND_DOWN()?
>
This macro is currently not used and I will remove it in v2.
> > +
> > +/* Round x divided by y to nearest higher integer. x and y are integers */
> > +#define MSCC_DIV_ROUND_UP(x, y) (((x) + (y) - 1) / (y))
>
> DIV_ROUND_UP() ?
>
I will use DIV_ROUND_UP() in v2.
> > + /* Limit to maximum values */
> > + pir = min_t(u32, GENMASK(15, 0), pir);
> > + cir = min_t(u32, GENMASK(15, 0), cir);
> > + pbs = min_t(u32, pbs_max, pbs);
> > + cbs = min_t(u32, cbs_max, cbs);
>
> If it does need to limit, maybe return -EOPNOTSUPP?
>
It seems fine to return -EOPBITSUPP here.
I will do that in v2.
> > +int ocelot_port_policer_add(struct ocelot_port *port,
> > + struct tcf_police *p)
> > +{
> > + struct ocelot *ocelot = port->ocelot;
> > + struct qos_policer_conf pp;
> > +
> > + if (!p)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + netdev_dbg(port->dev,
> > + "result %d ewma_rate %u burst %lld mtu %u mtu_pktoks %lld\n",
> > + p->params->tcfp_result,
> > + p->params->tcfp_ewma_rate,
> > + p->params->tcfp_burst,
> > + p->params->tcfp_mtu,
> > + p->params->tcfp_mtu_ptoks);
> > +
> > + if (p->params->rate_present)
> > + netdev_dbg(port->dev,
> > + "rate: rate %llu mult %u over %u link %u shift %u\n",
> > + p->params->rate.rate_bytes_ps,
> > + p->params->rate.mult,
> > + p->params->rate.overhead,
> > + p->params->rate.linklayer,
> > + p->params->rate.shift);
> > +
> > + if (p->params->peak_present)
> > + netdev_dbg(port->dev,
> > + "peak: rate %llu mult %u over %u link %u shift %u\n",
> > + p->params->peak.rate_bytes_ps,
> > + p->params->peak.mult,
> > + p->params->peak.overhead,
> > + p->params->peak.linklayer,
> > + p->params->peak.shift);
> > +
> > + memset(&pp, 0, sizeof(pp));
>
> Rather than memset, you can do:
>
> struct qos_policer_conf pp = { 0 };
>
I will do as you suggest in v2.
> Andrew
>
--
Joergen Andreasen, Microchip
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-03 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-02 9:40 [PATCH net-next 0/3] Add hw offload of TC police on MSCC ocelot Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-02 9:40 ` [PATCH net-next 1/3] net/sched: act_police: move police parameters into separate header file Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-02 20:38 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-05-02 9:40 ` [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: mscc: ocelot: Implement port policers via tc command Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-02 12:32 ` Andrew Lunn
2019-05-03 11:23 ` Joergen Andreasen [this message]
2019-05-02 20:36 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-05-03 11:38 ` Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-04 13:07 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-05-07 8:30 ` Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-02 9:40 ` [PATCH net-next 3/3] MIPS: generic: Add police related options to ocelot_defconfig Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-02 16:27 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-05-03 10:47 ` Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-23 10:49 ` [PATCH net-next v2 0/1] Add hw offload of TC police on MSCC ocelot Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-23 10:49 ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/1] net: mscc: ocelot: Implement port policers via tc command Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-23 18:56 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-05-24 11:40 ` Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-28 12:49 ` [PATCH net-next v3 0/1] Add hw offload of TC police on MSCC ocelot Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-28 12:49 ` [PATCH net-next v3 1/1] net: mscc: ocelot: Implement port policers via tc command Joergen Andreasen
2019-05-30 4:38 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly 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=20190503112327.he2unkak7rhm6ajk@soft-dev16 \
--to=joergen.andreasen@microchip.com \
--cc=UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jhogan@kernel.org \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.burton@mips.com \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).