Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: delete rx_descs property

[Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm@ti.com>]

On Tuesday 14 June 2016 06:08 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13.06.16 18:19, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>> On 06/13/2016 03:22 AM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
>>> On Saturday 11 June 2016 04:34 AM, Schuyler Patton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/08/2016 07:03 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09.06.16 02:11, Schuyler Patton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/08/2016 09:06 AM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 08.06.16 17:01, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Schuyer,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07.06.16 18:26, Schuyler Patton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/07/2016 08:59 AM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> There is no reason in rx_descs property because davinici_cpdma
>>>>>>>>>> driver splits pool of descriptors equally between tx and rx
>>>>>>>>>> channels.
>>>>>>>>>> So, this patch series makes driver to use available number of
>>>>>>>>>> descriptors for rx channels.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree with the idea of consolidating how the descriptors are
>>>>>>>>> defined because of
>>>>>>>>> the two variable components, number and size of the pool can be
>>>>>>>>> confusing to
>>>>>>>>> end users. I would like to request to change how it is being
>>>>>>>>> proposed here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think the number of descriptors should be left in the device
>>>>>>>>> tree source file as
>>>>>>>>> is and remove the BD size variable and have the driver calculate
>>>>>>>>> the size of the
>>>>>>>>> pool necessary to support the descriptor request. From an user
>>>>>>>>> perspective it is
>>>>>>>>> easier I think to be able to list the number of descriptors
>>>>>>>>> necessary vs. the size
>>>>>>>>> of the pool.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since the patch series points out how it is used so in the driver
>>>>>>>>> so to make that
>>>>>>>>> consistent is perhaps change rx_descs to total_descs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Schuyler
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The DT entry for cpsw doesn't have property for size of the pool.
>>>>>>>> It contains only BD ram size, if you mean this. The size of the
>>>>>>>> pool is
>>>>>>>> software decision. Current version of DT entry contain only rx desc
>>>>>>>> number.
>>>>>>>> That is not correct, as it depends on the size of the descriptor,
>>>>>>>> which is also
>>>>>>>> h/w parameter. The DT entry has to describe only h/w part and
>>>>>>>> shouldn't contain
>>>>>>>> driver implementation details, and I'm looking on it from this
>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Besides, rx_descs describes only rx number of descriptors, that are
>>>>>>>> taken from
>>>>>>>> the same pool as tx descriptors, and setting rx desc to some new
>>>>>>>> value doesn't
>>>>>>>> mean that rest of them are freed for tx. Also, I'm going to send
>>>>>>>> series that
>>>>>>>> adds multi channel support to the driver, and in this case,
>>>>>>>> splitting of the
>>>>>>>> pool will be more sophisticated than now, after what setting those
>>>>>>>> parameters
>>>>>>>> for user (he should do this via device tree) can be even more
>>>>>>>> confusing. But,
>>>>>>> should -> shouldn't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as it's supposed, it's software decision that shouldn't leak to the
>>>>>>>> DT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this rx-desc field is removed how will the number of descriptors
>>>>>> be set?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This field has been used to increase the number of descriptors so
>>>>>> high
>>>>>> volume short packets are not dropped due to descriptor exhaustion.
>>>>>> The current
>>>>>> default number of 64 rx descriptors is too low for gigabit networks.
>>>>>> Some users
>>>>>> have a strong requirement for zero loss of UDP packets setting this
>>>>>> field to a
>>>>>> larger number and setting the descriptors off-chip was a means to
>>>>>> solve
>>>>>> the problem.
>>>>> The current implementation of cpdma driver splits descs num on 2 parts
>>>>> equally.
>>>>> Total number = 256, then 128 reserved for rx and 128 for tx, but
>>>>> setting this to
>>>>> 64, simply limits usage of reserved rx descriptors to 64, so that:
>>>>> 64 rx descs, 128 tx descs and 64 are always present in the pool but
>>>>> cannot be used,
>>>>> (as new rx descriptor is allocated only after previous was freed).
>>>>> That means, 64 rx descs are unused. In case of rx descriptor
>>>>> exhaustion, an user can
>>>>> set rx_descs to 128, for instance, in this case all descriptors will
>>>>> be in use, but then question,
>>>>> why intentionally limit number of rx descs, anyway rest 64 descs
>>>>> cannot be used for other
>>>>> purposes. In case of this patch, all rx descs are in use, and no need
>>>>> to correct number
>>>>> of rx descs anymore, use all of them....and it doesn't have impact on
>>>>> performance, as
>>>>> anyway, bunch of rx descs were simply limited by DT and unused. So,
>>>>> probably, there is no
>>>>> reason to worry about that.
>>>>
>>>> When we see this issue we set the descriptors to DDR and put a large
>>>> number
>>>> in the desc count. unfortunately I wish I could provide a number,
>>>> usually the issue
>>>> is a volume burst of short UDP packets.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PS:
>>>>> It doesn't concern this patch, but, which PPS makes rx descs to be
>>>>> exhausted?...
>>>>> (In this case "desc_alloc_fail" counter contains some value for rx
>>>>> channel,
>>>>> and can be read with "ethtool -S eth0". Also, the user will be WARNed
>>>>> ON by the driver)
>>>>>
>>>>> it's interesting to test it, I'm worrying about, because in case of
>>>>> multichannel,
>>>>> the pool is split between all channels... they are throughput limited,
>>>>> but
>>>>> anyway, it's good to correlate the number of descs with throughput
>>>>> assigned to
>>>>> a channel, if possible. That has to be possible, if setting to 128
>>>>> helps, then
>>>>> has to be value between 64 and 128 to make handling of rx packets fast
>>>>> enough.
>>>>> After what, can be calculated correlation between number of rx descs
>>>>> and throughput
>>>>> split between channels....
>>>>
>>>> With gigabit networks 64 or 128 rx descriptors is not going to
>>>> enough to
>>>> fix the
>>>> DMA overrun problem. Usually we set this number to an arbitrarily large
>>>> 2000
>>>> descriptors in external DDR to demonstrate it is possible to not drop
>>>> packets. All
>>>> this does is move the problem higher up so that the drops occur in
>>>> network
>>>> stack if the ARM is overloaded. With the high speed networks I would
>>>> like
>>>> to propose that the descriptor pool or pools are moved to DDR by
>>>> default. It would
>>>> be nice to have some reconfigurability or set a pool size that reduces
>>>> or eliminates
>>>> the DMA issue that is seen in these types of applications.
>>>>
>>>> This test gets used a lot, which is to send very short UDP packets.
>>>> If I
>>>> have the math
>>>> right, a 52 byte (64 byte with the inter-frame gap) UDP packet the
>>>> default 64
>>>> descriptors gets consumed in roughly 33uS. There are the switch fifos
>>>> which will also
>>>> allow some headroom, but a user was dropping packets at the switch when
>>>> they
>>>> were bursting 360 packets at the processor on a gigabit link
>>>>
>>>
>>> I too agree that rx-descs can be derived from the pool size and
>>> descriptor size in driver itself. The current driver uses bd_ram_size to
>>> set the pool size when the descriptors are placed in DDR which is wrong.
>>>
>>> Here I propose an idea to solve Schuyler's concern to keep the
>>> descriptors in DDR when a system need more rx descriptors for lossless
>>> UDB performance.
>>>
>>> The DT property rx-descs can be removed and add a new DT property
>>> *pool_size* to add support for descriptors memory size in DDR and define
>>> a pool size which the system needs for a network to have lossless UDP
>>> transfers.
>>>
>>
>> I second the pool_size property, but being purely a driver configuration
>> setting based on expected network environment and not a HW description
>> it should probably be a module parameter, not DT property.
>>
>> Andrew
> 
> Agree, DT is not the best place for it.
> And it be done with separate patch-set, as this patch solves rx_descs
> issue,
> not pool_size.
> 

+Dave

There were many instance where David Miller discouraged using module
parameters (some links below), thats why I suggested DT property. I am
okay with module parameter as well, Leaving the decision to Dave which
way it can be implemented.

- https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/82882/
- http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2014/02/17/6

Regards
Mugunthan V N