On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:55:27PM +0000, Trahe, Fiona wrote:

Hi Neil and Olivier,

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:40 PM
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; thomas.monjalon@6wind.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev, RFC] drivers: advertise kmod dependencies
in pmdinfo

Hi Neil,

On 08/31/2016 03:27 PM, Neil Horman wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:21:18AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:

quoted

Hi Neil,

On 08/30/2016 03:23 PM, Neil Horman wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:20:46PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:

quoted

Add a new macro DRIVER_REGISTER_KMOD_DEP() that allows a driver to
declare the list of kernel modules required to run properly.

Today, most PCI drivers require uio/vfio.

Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <redacted>

---
In this RFC, I supposed that all PCI drivers require a the loading of a
uio/vfio module (except mlx*), this may be wrong.
Comments are welcome!


 buildtools/pmdinfogen/pmdinfogen.c      |  1 +
 buildtools/pmdinfogen/pmdinfogen.h      |  1 +
 drivers/crypto/qat/rte_qat_cryptodev.c  |  2 ++
 drivers/net/bnx2x/bnx2x_ethdev.c        |  4 ++++
 drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_ethdev.c          |  2 ++
 drivers/net/cxgbe/cxgbe_ethdev.c        |  2 ++
 drivers/net/e1000/em_ethdev.c           |  2 ++
 drivers/net/e1000/igb_ethdev.c          |  4 ++++
 drivers/net/ena/ena_ethdev.c            |  2 ++
 drivers/net/enic/enic_ethdev.c          |  2 ++
 drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_ethdev.c        |  2 ++
 drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c          |  2 ++
 drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c       |  2 ++
 drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c        |  4 ++++
 drivers/net/mlx4/mlx4.c                 |  2 ++
 drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c                 |  3 +++
 drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c               |  2 ++
 drivers/net/qede/qede_ethdev.c          |  4 ++++
 drivers/net/szedata2/rte_eth_szedata2.c |  2 ++
 drivers/net/thunderx/nicvf_ethdev.c     |  2 ++
 drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c      |  2 ++
 drivers/net/vmxnet3/vmxnet3_ethdev.c    |  2 ++
 lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_dev.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
 tools/dpdk-pmdinfo.py                   |  5 ++++-
 24 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Generally speaking, I like the idea, it makes sense to me in terms of using
pmdinfo to export this information

That said, This may need to be a set of macros.  By that I mean (and correct

me

quoted

quoted

quoted

if I'm wrong here), but the relationship between pmd's and kernel modules

is in

quoted

quoted

quoted

some cases, more complex than a 'requires' or 'depends' relationship.  That

is

quoted

quoted

quoted

to say, some pmd may need user space hardware access, but can use either

uio OR

quoted

quoted

quoted

vfio, but doesn't need both, and can continue to function if only one is
available.  Other PMD's may be able to use vfio or uio, but can still function
without either.  And some, as your patch implements, simply require one or

the

quoted

quoted

quoted

other to function.  As such it seems like you may want a few macros, in the

form

quoted

quoted

quoted

of:

DRIVER_REGISTER_KMOD_REQUEST - List of modules to attempt loading,

ignore any

quoted

quoted

quoted

failures
DRIVER_REGISTER_KMOD_REQUIRE - List of modules required to be

loaded after

quoted

quoted

quoted

request macro completes, fail if any are not loaded

Thats just spitballing, mind you, theres probably a better way to do it, but

the

quoted

quoted

quoted

idea is to list a set of modules you would like to have, and then create a
parsable syntax to describe the modules that need to be loaded after the

request

quoted

quoted

quoted

is complete so that you can accurately codify the situations I described

above.

quoted

quoted

Thank you for your feedback.
However, I'm not sure I'm perfectly getting what you suggest.

Do you think some PMDs could request a kernel module without really
requiring it? Do you have an example in mind?

Yes, thats precisely it.  The most clear example I could think of (though I'm
not sure if any pmd currently supports this), is a pmd that supports both UIO
and VFIO communication with the kernel.  Such a PMD requires that one of

those

quoted

two modules be loaded, but only one (i.e. both are not required), so if only

the

quoted

uio kernel module loads is a success case, likewise if only the vfio module
loads can be treated as success.  Both loading are clearly successful.  Only if
neither load do we have a failure case.  I'm suggesting that the grammer that
your exports define should take those cases into account.  Its not always as
simple as "I must have the following modules"

quoted

The syntax I've submitted lets you define several lists of modules, so
that the user or the script that starts the application can decide which
kmod list is better according to the environment.

If you have a human intervening in the module load process, sure, then its

fine.

quoted

But it seems that this particular feature that you're implemnting might have
automated uses.  That is to say the dpdk core library might be interested in
parsing this particular information to direct module autoloading, and if thats
desireable then you need to define these lists such that you can codify failure
and success conditions.

quoted

For example, most drivers will advertise
"uio,igb_uio:uio,uio_pci_generic:vfio,vfio-pci", and the user or script
will have to choose between loading:
- uio igb_uio
- uio uio_pci_generic
- vfio vfio-pci

Oh, I see, so your list is a colon delimited list of module load sets, where at
least one set must succeed by loading all modules in its set, but the failure of
any one set isn't fatal to the process?  e.g. a string like this:

uio,igb_uio:vfio,vfio-pci

could be interpreted to mean "I must load (uio AND igb_uio) OR (vfio AND
vfio-pci).  If the evaluation of that statement results in false, then the
operation fails, otherwise it succedes.

If thats the case, then, apologies, we're on the same page, and this will work
just fine.

Yep, that's the idea.

Colon and commas are the best separators I've thought about, but any
idea to make the syntax clearer is welcome ;)

Maybe a syntax like is clearer:
  "(mod1 & mod2)|(mod3 & mod4)" ?
But it would let the user think that more complex expressions are valid,
like "(mod1 & (mod2 | mod3)) | mod4", which is probably overkill.

Regards,
Olivier

This RFC seems like a good idea - and something the Intel QuickAssist PMD could benefit from.
However the (mod1 & mod2) can handle the QAT case better in my opinion.
i.e.
as well as needing one of 
* uio igb_uio
* uio uio_pci_generic
* vfio vfio-pci
QAT PMD also needs one of (depending on which physical device is plugged)
 * qat_dh895xcc
 * qat_c62x
 * qat_c3xxx

So the original syntax would result in a very long list of possible variations.
What really reflects the dependencies would be 
((uio & igb_uio) | (uio & uio_pci_generic) | (vfio & vfio_pci)) & (qat_dh895xcc | qat_c62x | qat_c3xxx)

Ah, I didn't consider that hardware specifics might create a use case where a
pmd must have one or more kernel modules available for hw support.  Perhaps it
is worthwhile to automate hardware support - that is to say, any module loading
script should automatically look at the pci table exported from a pmd, and, if
found, load any modules that claim support for that device:vendor tuple?  Though
that might break in the case of uio, if there are separate driver modules that
support native hardware and uio access.

Also the dependencies on a VM are different to a bare-metal installation, i.e. the qat_xxxx driver just 
needs to be loaded in the Host. So maybe this could be satisfied by a separate list?
DRIVER_REGISTER_KMOD_DEP()
DRIVER_REGISTER_KMOD_VM_DEP()

This makes me a bit nervous, Ideally, nothing should have to know if its running
on bare metal or in a vm, we should try to avoid vm specific macros if possible.
Not sure what the alternative is yet, though.

But maybe this is all too complex, and instead the feature should be considered as optional and 
not requiring all dependencies to be declared? 

Regards,
Fiona