Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: mvpp2: use the same buffer pool for all ports
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 01:41:48PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:48:13 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
>
> > > > +static void mvpp2_setup_bm_pool(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /* Short pool */
> > > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM;
> > > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Long pool */
> > > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM;
> > > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > I wanted to do this, but it's no possible as MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE and
> > MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE use a core definition which expands at some point
> > to __max(...) which has to be called from within a function.
>
> Hum, weird:
>
> #define MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE
> MVPP2_RX_MAX_PKT_SIZE(MVPP2_BM_LONG_FRAME_SIZE)
> #define MVPP2_BM_LONG_FRAME_SIZE 2048
>
> #define MVPP2_RX_MAX_PKT_SIZE(total_size) \
> ((total_size) - NET_SKB_PAD - MVPP2_SKB_SHINFO_SIZE)
>
> #define MVPP2_SKB_SHINFO_SIZE \
> SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info))
>
> #define SKB_DATA_ALIGN(X)ALIGN(X, SMP_CACHE_BYTES)
>
> I don't really see a __max(...) call.
NET_SKB_PAD expends to __max(...).
> And if this value really expands depending on other values, then it
> isn't really a constant, and should be considered as a constant, no?
Well, the padding isn't truly a constant for some reasons, you can see
an explanation here:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/skbuff.h#L2446
But this value can only change at compile time, so it really depends on
what is the definition of a constant is :)
Antoine
--
Antoine Ténart, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: mvpp2: use the same buffer pool for all ports
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 01:41:48PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:48:13 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
>
> > > > +static void mvpp2_setup_bm_pool(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /* Short pool */
> > > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM;
> > > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Long pool */
> > > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM;
> > > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > I wanted to do this, but it's no possible as MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE and
> > MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE use a core definition which expands at some point
> > to __max(...) which has to be called from within a function.
>
> Hum, weird:
>
> #define MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE
> MVPP2_RX_MAX_PKT_SIZE(MVPP2_BM_LONG_FRAME_SIZE)
> #define MVPP2_BM_LONG_FRAME_SIZE 2048
>
> #define MVPP2_RX_MAX_PKT_SIZE(total_size) \
> ((total_size) - NET_SKB_PAD - MVPP2_SKB_SHINFO_SIZE)
>
> #define MVPP2_SKB_SHINFO_SIZE \
> SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info))
>
> #define SKB_DATA_ALIGN(X)ALIGN(X, SMP_CACHE_BYTES)
>
> I don't really see a __max(...) call.
NET_SKB_PAD expends to __max(...).
> And if this value really expands depending on other values, then it
> isn't really a constant, and should be considered as a constant, no?
Well, the padding isn't truly a constant for some reasons, you can see
an explanation here:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/skbuff.h#L2446
But this value can only change at compile time, so it really depends on
what is the definition of a constant is :)
Antoine
--
Antoine Ténart, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: mvpp2: use the same buffer pool for all ports
Hello,
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:48:13 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > > +static void mvpp2_setup_bm_pool(void)
> > > +{
> > > + /* Short pool */
> > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM;
> > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE;
> > > +
> > > + /* Long pool */
> > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM;
> > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE;
> > > +}
> >
> > ?
>
> I wanted to do this, but it's no possible as MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE and
> MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE use a core definition which expands at some point
> to __max(...) which has to be called from within a function.
Hum, weird:
#define MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE MVPP2_RX_MAX_PKT_SIZE(MVPP2_BM_LONG_FRAME_SIZE)
#define MVPP2_BM_LONG_FRAME_SIZE2048
#define MVPP2_RX_MAX_PKT_SIZE(total_size) \
((total_size) - NET_SKB_PAD - MVPP2_SKB_SHINFO_SIZE)
#define MVPP2_SKB_SHINFO_SIZE \
SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info))
#define SKB_DATA_ALIGN(X)ALIGN(X, SMP_CACHE_BYTES)
I don't really see a __max(...) call.
And if this value really expands depending on other values, then it
isn't really a constant, and should be considered as a constant, no?
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://bootlin.com
Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: mvpp2: use the same buffer pool for all ports
Hello,
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:48:13 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > > +static void mvpp2_setup_bm_pool(void)
> > > +{
> > > + /* Short pool */
> > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM;
> > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE;
> > > +
> > > + /* Long pool */
> > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM;
> > > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE;
> > > +}
> >
> > ?
>
> I wanted to do this, but it's no possible as MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE and
> MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE use a core definition which expands at some point
> to __max(...) which has to be called from within a function.
Hum, weird:
#define MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE MVPP2_RX_MAX_PKT_SIZE(MVPP2_BM_LONG_FRAME_SIZE)
#define MVPP2_BM_LONG_FRAME_SIZE2048
#define MVPP2_RX_MAX_PKT_SIZE(total_size) \
((total_size) - NET_SKB_PAD - MVPP2_SKB_SHINFO_SIZE)
#define MVPP2_SKB_SHINFO_SIZE \
SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info))
#define SKB_DATA_ALIGN(X)ALIGN(X, SMP_CACHE_BYTES)
I don't really see a __max(...) call.
And if this value really expands depending on other values, then it
isn't really a constant, and should be considered as a constant, no?
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://bootlin.com
Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: mvpp2: use the same buffer pool for all ports
Hi Thomas,
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:01:59PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:40:40 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > +static struct {
> > + int pkt_size;
> > + int buf_num;
> > +} mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM];
>
> Any reason for not doing:
>
> } mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM] = {
> [MVPP2_BM_SHORT] = {
> .pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE,
> .buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM
> },
> [MVPP2_BM_LONG] = {
> .pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE,
> .buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM,
> },
> };
>
> And get rid of:
>
> > +static void mvpp2_setup_bm_pool(void)
> > +{
> > + /* Short pool */
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM;
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE;
> > +
> > + /* Long pool */
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM;
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE;
> > +}
>
> ?
I wanted to do this, but it's no possible as MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE and
MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE use a core definition which expands at some point
to __max(...) which has to be called from within a function.
That's why I kept mvpp2_setup_bm_pool().
Thanks!
Antoine
--
Antoine Ténart, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: mvpp2: use the same buffer pool for all ports
Hi Thomas,
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:01:59PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:40:40 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > +static struct {
> > + int pkt_size;
> > + int buf_num;
> > +} mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM];
>
> Any reason for not doing:
>
> } mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM] = {
> [MVPP2_BM_SHORT] = {
> .pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE,
> .buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM
> },
> [MVPP2_BM_LONG] = {
> .pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE,
> .buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM,
> },
> };
>
> And get rid of:
>
> > +static void mvpp2_setup_bm_pool(void)
> > +{
> > + /* Short pool */
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM;
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE;
> > +
> > + /* Long pool */
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM;
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE;
> > +}
>
> ?
I wanted to do this, but it's no possible as MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE and
MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE use a core definition which expands at some point
to __max(...) which has to be called from within a function.
That's why I kept mvpp2_setup_bm_pool().
Thanks!
Antoine
--
Antoine Ténart, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
RE: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: mvpp2: use the same buffer pool for all ports
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:40:40 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > +static struct {
> > + int pkt_size;
> > + int buf_num;
> > +} mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM];
>
> Any reason for not doing:
>
> } mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM] = {
> [MVPP2_BM_SHORT] = {
> .pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE,
> .buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM
> },
> [MVPP2_BM_LONG] = {
> .pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE,
> .buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM,
> },
> };
>
> And get rid of:
>
> > +static void mvpp2_setup_bm_pool(void) {
> > + /* Short pool */
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].buf_num =
> MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM;
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].pkt_size =
> MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE;
> > +
> > + /* Long pool */
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].buf_num =
> MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM;
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].pkt_size =
> MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE; }
>
> ?
>
No, we can change it.
Stefan.
RE: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: mvpp2: use the same buffer pool for all ports
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:40:40 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > +static struct {
> > + int pkt_size;
> > + int buf_num;
> > +} mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM];
>
> Any reason for not doing:
>
> } mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM] = {
> [MVPP2_BM_SHORT] = {
> .pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE,
> .buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM
> },
> [MVPP2_BM_LONG] = {
> .pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE,
> .buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM,
> },
> };
>
> And get rid of:
>
> > +static void mvpp2_setup_bm_pool(void) {
> > + /* Short pool */
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].buf_num =
> MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM;
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].pkt_size =
> MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE;
> > +
> > + /* Long pool */
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].buf_num =
> MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM;
> > + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].pkt_size =
> MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE; }
>
> ?
>
No, we can change it.
Stefan.
Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: mvpp2: use the same buffer pool for all ports
Hello,
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:40:40 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> +static struct {
> + int pkt_size;
> + int buf_num;
> +} mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM];
Any reason for not doing:
} mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM] = {
[MVPP2_BM_SHORT] = {
.pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE,
.buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM
},
[MVPP2_BM_LONG] = {
.pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE,
.buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM,
},
};
And get rid of:
> +static void mvpp2_setup_bm_pool(void)
> +{
> + /* Short pool */
> + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM;
> + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE;
> +
> + /* Long pool */
> + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM;
> + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE;
> +}
?
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://bootlin.com
Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: mvpp2: use the same buffer pool for all ports
Hello,
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:40:40 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> +static struct {
> + int pkt_size;
> + int buf_num;
> +} mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM];
Any reason for not doing:
} mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM] = {
[MVPP2_BM_SHORT] = {
.pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE,
.buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM
},
[MVPP2_BM_LONG] = {
.pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE,
.buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM,
},
};
And get rid of:
> +static void mvpp2_setup_bm_pool(void)
> +{
> + /* Short pool */
> + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM;
> + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE;
> +
> + /* Long pool */
> + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM;
> + mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE;
> +}
?
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://bootlin.com
