From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add helpers to move to the new offloads API Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 15:53:33 +0200 Message-ID: <2327783.H4uO08xLcu@xps> References: <810c1d26724f82f0d9fc9d6684dc4b1c62fd5f62.1504508375.git.shahafs@mellanox.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F24602F@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Shahaf Shuler , dev@dpdk.org To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F703376C for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:53:36 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F24602F@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 04/09/2017 15:25, Ananyev, Konstantin: > Hi Shahaf, > > > +/** > > + * A conversion function from rxmode offloads API to rte_eth_rxq_conf > > + * offloads API. > > + */ > > +static void > > +rte_eth_convert_rxmode_offloads(struct rte_eth_rxmode *rxmode, > > + struct rte_eth_rxq_conf *rxq_conf) > > +{ > > + if (rxmode->header_split == 1) > > + rxq_conf->offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT; > > + if (rxmode->hw_ip_checksum == 1) > > + rxq_conf->offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM; > > + if (rxmode->hw_vlan_filter == 1) > > + rxq_conf->offloads |= DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_FILTER; > > Thinking on it a bit more: > VLAN_FILTER is definitely one per device, as it would affect VFs also. > At least that's what we have for Intel devices (ixgbe, i40e) right now. > For Intel devices VLAN_STRIP is also per device and > will also be applied to all corresponding VFs. > In fact, right now it is possible to query/change these 3 vlan offload flags on the fly > (after dev_start) on port basis by rte_eth_dev_(get|set)_vlan_offload API. > So, I think at least these 3 flags need to be remained on a port basis. I don't understand how it helps to be able to configure the same thing in 2 places. I think you are just describing a limitation of these HW: some offloads must be the same for all queues. It does not prevent from configuring them in the per-queue setup. > In fact, why can't we have both per port and per queue RX offload: > - dev_configure() will accept RX_OFFLOAD_* flags and apply them on a port basis. > - rx_queue_setup() will also accept RX_OFFLOAD_* flags and apply them on a queue basis. > - if particular RX_OFFLOAD flag for that device couldn't be setup on a queue basis - > rx_queue_setup() will return an error. The queue setup can work while the value is the same for every queues. > - rte_eth_rxq_info can be extended to provide information which RX_OFFLOADs > can be configured on a per queue basis. Yes the PMD should advertise its limitations like being forced to apply the same configuration to all its queues. > BTW - in that case we probably wouldn't need ignore flag inside rx_conf anymore.