Thread (97 messages) 97 messages, 10 authors, 2021-10-12

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of Rx meta data

From: Ori Kam <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-03 07:05:44

Hi
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Malov <redacted>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery
of Rx meta data



On 01/10/2021 01:12, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:01 PM Ivan Malov [off-list ref]
wrote:
quoted
quoted
Hi Ajit,

On 01/10/2021 00:48, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
quoted
::::
quoted
diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
97ae52e17e..7a8da3d7ab 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
@@ -1485,10 +1485,36 @@ static void
   init_config_port_offloads(portid_t pid, uint32_t socket_id)
   {
          struct rte_port *port = &ports[pid];
+       uint64_t rx_meta_features = 0;
          uint16_t data_size;
          int ret;
          int i;

+       rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG;
+       rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK;
+       rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID;
+
+       ret = rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate(pid, &rx_meta_features);
+       if (ret == 0) {
+               if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG)) {
+                       TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow action FLAG will
+ not affect Rx mbufs on port %u\n",
Log level info might be a little too noisy?
Do you really think so? But main() sets default log level to DEBUG, quote:
      rte_log_set_level(testpmd_logtype, RTE_LOG_DEBUG);

If I go for DEBUG instead of INFO here, it won't get any quieter, will it?
You are right. It won't.
But then three extra messages per port will stand out. But that's my
opinion.
quoted
Maybe you could log the message when a flow is created with any of the
meta features?
The idea is to warn the user from the very beginning that certain flow
primitives won't actually work. This way, the user can refrain from trying to
use them in flow rules. This might save their time.

But I don't mind going for DEBUG here. More opinions are welcome.
+1 for doing it only for configuration, and not per flow.
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
+                                   pid);
+               }
+
+               if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK)) {
+                       TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow action MARK will not affect Rx
mbufs on port %u\n",
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
+                                   pid);
+               }
+
+               if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID)) {
+                       TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow tunnel offload support might
be limited or unavailable on port %u\n",
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
+                                   pid);
+               }
:::
quoted
--
Ivan M
--
Ivan M
Best,
Ori
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help