On , October 12, 2018 12:25 PM Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>
> On 10 Oct 2018, at 18:14, Ophir Munk wrote:
>
> > Before this commit setting scatter offload was based on checking
> > net_nfp device.
> > Since DPDK 17.11 more PMD drivers are reporting offload capabilities.
> > Therefore this commit removes the specific check against net_nfp
> > device and replaces it with a generic check of device capabilities
> > before setting the scatter offload.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ophir Munk <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > v1-v4
> > This patch was not included in version v1-v4 of the series
> >
> > v5
> > Initial version
> >
> > lib/netdev-dpdk.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c index
> > 4dd0ec3..ecca276 100644
> > --- a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c
> > +++ b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c
> > @@ -367,6 +367,7 @@ struct ingress_policer { enum
> dpdk_hw_ol_features
> > {
> > NETDEV_RX_CHECKSUM_OFFLOAD = 1 << 0,
> > NETDEV_RX_HW_CRC_STRIP = 1 << 1,
> > + NETDEV_RX_HW_SCATTER = 1 << 2
> > };
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -894,13 +895,11 @@ dpdk_eth_dev_port_config(struct netdev_dpdk
> > *dev, int n_rxq, int n_txq)
> > rte_eth_dev_info_get(dev->port_id, &info);
> >
> > /* As of DPDK 17.11.1 a few PMDs require to explicitly enable
> > - * scatter to support jumbo RX. Checking the offload capabilities
> > - * is not an option as PMDs are not required yet to report
> > - * them. The only reliable info is the driver name and knowledge
> > - * (testing or code review). Listing all such PMDs feels harder
> > - * than highlighting the one known not to need scatter */
> > + * scatter to support jumbo RX.
> > + * Setting scatter for the device is done after checking for
> > + * scatter support in the device capabilites. */
> > if (dev->mtu > ETHER_MTU) {
> > - if (strncmp(info.driver_name, "net_nfp", 7)) {
> > + if (dev->hw_ol_features & NETDEV_RX_HW_SCATTER) {
> > conf.rxmode.offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER;
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -1035,6 +1034,13 @@ dpdk_eth_dev_init(struct netdev_dpdk *dev)
> > dev->hw_ol_features |= NETDEV_RX_CHECKSUM_OFFLOAD;
> > }
> >
> > + if (info.rx_offload_capa & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER) {
> > + dev->hw_ol_features |= NETDEV_RX_HW_SCATTER;
> > + } else {
> > + /* Do not warn on lack of scatter support */
> > + dev->hw_ol_features &= ~NETDEV_RX_HW_SCATTER;
>
> Don’t think we need to clear it explicitly, none of the other capabilities do
> this.
The other capabilities do clear explicitly.
There is a difference between NETDEV_RX_HW_SCATTER flag (which should be set or
cleared in dpdk_eth_dev_init()) and DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER flag (which is only
set in dpdk_eth_dev_port_config()).
Flags of type "NETDEV_RX_XXXXXX" are cleared explicitly. For example, we clear:
dev->hw_ol_features &= ~NETDEV_RX_HW_CRC_STRIP;
dev->hw_ol_features &= ~NETDEV_RX_CHECKSUM_OFFLOAD;
in the following code snippet:
if (strstr(info.driver_name, "vf") != NULL) {
VLOG_INFO("Virtual function detected, HW_CRC_STRIP will be enabled");
dev->hw_ol_features |= NETDEV_RX_HW_CRC_STRIP;
} else {
dev->hw_ol_features &= ~NETDEV_RX_HW_CRC_STRIP;
}
if ((info.rx_offload_capa & rx_chksm_offload_capa) !=
rx_chksm_offload_capa) {
VLOG_WARN("Rx checksum offload is not supported on port "
DPDK_PORT_ID_FMT, dev->port_id);
dev->hw_ol_features &= ~NETDEV_RX_CHECKSUM_OFFLOAD;
} else {
dev->hw_ol_features |= NETDEV_RX_CHECKSUM_OFFLOAD;
}
if (info.rx_offload_capa & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER) {
dev->hw_ol_features |= NETDEV_RX_HW_SCATTER;
} else {
/* Do not warn on lack of scatter support */
dev->hw_ol_features &= ~NETDEV_RX_HW_SCATTER;
}
During configuration we only set DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER flag:
if (dev->mtu > ETHER_MTU) {
if (dev->hw_ol_features & NETDEV_RX_HW_SCATTER) {
conf.rxmode.offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SCATTER;
I suggest keeping the patch as is.
> For the rest this patch look good to me.
>
> > + }
> > +
> > n_rxq = MIN(info.max_rx_queues, dev->up.n_rxq);
> > n_txq = MIN(info.max_tx_queues, dev->up.n_txq);
> >
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev mailing list
> > [email protected]
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmai
> > l.openvswitch.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fovs-
> dev&data=02%7C01%7Cop
> >
> hirmu%40mellanox.com%7C7b49470cf2934809bbb708d6302488c4%7Ca652
> 971c7d2e
> >
> 4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636749330816444832&sdata=i
> OkI1RtzoA
> > yZJgi0eMWTW1AJZ73fm2EuhGKkWQCvFLI%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
