Re: [RFC] ethdev: remove all offload API
From: Ferruh Yigit <hidden>
Date: 2018-06-11 11:18:31
On 6/11/2018 12:00 PM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
Hi Ferruh, Thanks for this patch. Monday, June 11, 2018 12:10 PM, Ferruh Yigit:quoted
Subject: Re: [RFC] ethdev: remove all offload API On 6/9/2018 9:04 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:quoted
On 06/09/2018 01:41 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:quoted
Cc: Shahaf Shuler <redacted> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <redacted> ---<...>quoted
diff --git a/app/test-eventdev/test_perf_common.cb/app/test-eventdev/test_perf_common.c index d00f91802..9fe042ffe 100644--- a/app/test-eventdev/test_perf_common.c +++ b/app/test-eventdev/test_perf_common.c@@ -680,13 +680,7 @@ perf_ethdev_setup(struct evt_test *test, structevt_options *opt)quoted
quoted
.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_RX_RSS, .max_rx_pkt_len = ETHER_MAX_LEN, .split_hdr_size = 0, - .header_split = 0, - .hw_ip_checksum = 0, - .hw_vlan_filter = 0, - .hw_vlan_strip = 0, - .hw_vlan_extend = 0, .jumbo_frame = 0, - .hw_strip_crc = 1,Hi Andrew,quoted
I have 2 questions here: 1. Why is jumbo_frame kept? There isDEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME. Because there are still some usage of this flag in PMDs, they need to be clarified before removing the flag. I am for removing the flag in final version, but for this RFC I am not able to find enough time to work on PMDs for it.Can you elaborate? Is this something more than just a replace of the jumbo_frame bit with its corresponding flag?
That was my concern that copy paste won't be enough because some drivers not just use the jumbo_frame but set it based on max_rx_pkt_len etc.., that is why left out .jumbo_frame in the RFC.
quoted
quoted
2. Why is hw_strip_crc=1 discarded? Yes, I remember plans to make it default behaviour and introduce flag to keep CRC, but right now the patch looks like mixture of two changes which is not good.Yes it is wrong, app should replace "".hw_strip_crc=1 with KEEP_CRC offload. Since both are RFC, kind of hard to maintain, but I think good to create a dependency from this patch to KEEP_CRC one.quoted
There are more cases in the patch where hw_strip_crc=1 is simplydiscarded.quoted
<...>quoted
diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ethdev.cb/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ethdev.c index 1b6499f85..ee8ae5b9f 100644--- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ethdev.c +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ethdev.c@@ -1089,7 +1089,6 @@ sfc_tx_queue_info_get(struct rte_eth_dev*dev,quoted
quoted
uint16_t tx_queue_id, memset(qinfo, 0, sizeof(*qinfo)); - qinfo->conf.txq_flags = txq_info->txq->flags; qinfo->conf.offloads = txq_info->txq->offloads; qinfo->conf.tx_free_thresh = txq_info->txq->free_thresh; qinfo->conf.tx_deferred_start = txq_info->deferred_start; diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_rx.c b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_rx.c index cc76a5b15..58a0df583 100644--- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_rx.c +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_rx.c@@ -1446,7 +1446,6 @@ sfc_rx_check_mode(struct sfc_adapter *sa,struct rte_eth_rxmode *rxmode)quoted
quoted
if (~rxmode->offloads & DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP) { sfc_warn(sa, "FCS stripping cannot be disabled - always on"); rxmode->offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CRC_STRIP; - rxmode->hw_strip_crc = 1; } return rc;diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_tx.c b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_tx.c index 1bcc2c697..6d42a1a65 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_tx.c +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_tx.c@@ -171,7 +171,6 @@ sfc_tx_qinit(struct sfc_adapter *sa, unsigned intsw_index,quoted
quoted
txq->free_thresh = (tx_conf->tx_free_thresh) ? tx_conf->tx_free_thresh : SFC_TX_DEFAULT_FREE_THRESH; - txq->flags = tx_conf->txq_flags; txq->offloads = offloads; rc = sfc_dma_alloc(sa, "txq", sw_index, EFX_TXQ_SIZE(txq_info->entries), @@ -182,7 +181,6 @@sfc_tx_qinit(struct sfc_adapter *sa, unsigned int sw_index,quoted
quoted
memset(&info, 0, sizeof(info)); info.max_fill_level = txq_max_fill_level; info.free_thresh = txq->free_thresh; - info.flags = tx_conf->txq_flags; info.offloads = offloads; info.txq_entries = txq_info->entries; info.dma_desc_size_max = encp->enc_tx_dma_desc_size_max;@@ -431,18quoted
quoted
+429,10 @@ sfc_tx_qstart(struct sfc_adapter *sa, unsigned int sw_index) if (rc != 0) goto fail_ev_qstart; - /* - * The absence of ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE is associated with alegacyquoted
quoted
- * application which expects that IPv4 checksum offload is enabled - * all the time as there is no legacy flag to turn off the offload. - */ - if ((txq->offloads & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM) || - (~txq->flags & ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE)) + if (txq->offloads & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM) flags |= EFX_TXQ_CKSUM_IPV4; - if ((txq->offloads & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM) || - ((~txq->flags & ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE) && - (offloads_supported &DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM)))quoted
quoted
+ if (txq->offloads & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM) flags |= EFX_TXQ_CKSUM_INNER_IPV4; if ((txq->offloads & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM) || @@ -453,16+443,7quoted
quoted
@@ sfc_tx_qstart(struct sfc_adapter *sa, unsigned int sw_index) flags |= EFX_TXQ_CKSUM_INNER_TCPUDP; } - /* - * The absence of ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE is associated with alegacyquoted
quoted
- * application. In turn, the absence of ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOXSUMTCPisquoted
quoted
- * associated specifically with a legacy application which expects - * both TCP checksum offload and TSO to be enabled because thelegacyquoted
quoted
- * API does not provide a dedicated mechanism to control TSO. - */ - if ((txq->offloads & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO) || - ((~txq->flags & ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE) && - (~txq->flags & ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOXSUMTCP))) + if (txq->offloads & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO) flags |= EFX_TXQ_FATSOV2; rc = efx_tx_qcreate(sa->nic, sw_index, 0, &txq->mem,net/sfc changes looks good. Plus 'struct sfc_txq -> flags' (drivers/net/sfc/sfc_tx.h) and 'struct sfc_dp_tx_qcreate_info -> flags' (drivers/net/sfc/sfc_dp_tx.h) should be removed since there are not used now. If finally rxmode.jumbo_frame is removed, it should removed from net/sfc as well (but compiler will help to find it in any case). After applying the patch: $ git grep ETH_TXQ_FLAGS drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k.h:#define FM10K_SIMPLE_TX_FLAG ((uint32_t)ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTSEGS | \ drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k.h: ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOOFFLOADS)Thanks, will remove this too.quoted
In general I think that we should do it ASAP. Also it will guarantee that new PMDs do not use corresponding structure members etc.+1, +1