Re: [PATCH net-next] net/mlx5: support software TX timestamp

[Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@gmail.com>]

On 05/09, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/05/2025 19:22, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 05/08, Jason Xing wrote:
> > > Hi Tariq,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 2:30 PM Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 07/05/2025 0:55, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > > Having a software timestamp (along with existing hardware one) is
> > > > > useful to trace how the packets flow through the stack.
> > > > > mlx5e_tx_skb_update_hwts_flags is called from tx paths
> > > > > to setup HW timestamp; extend it to add software one as well.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@gmail.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_ethtool.c | 1 +
> > > > >    drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c      | 1 +
> > > > >    2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_ethtool.c
> > > > > index fdf9e9bb99ac..e399d7a3d6cb 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_ethtool.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_ethtool.c
> > > > > @@ -1689,6 +1689,7 @@ int mlx5e_ethtool_get_ts_info(struct mlx5e_priv *priv,
> > > > >                return 0;
> > > > > 
> > > > >        info->so_timestamping = SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE |
> > > > > +                             SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE |
> > > > >                                SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE |
> > > > >                                SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RAW_HARDWARE;
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c
> > > > > index 4fd853d19e31..f6dd26ad29e5 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c
> > > > > @@ -341,6 +341,7 @@ static void mlx5e_tx_skb_update_hwts_flags(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > >    {
> > > > >        if (unlikely(skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags & SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP))
> > > > >                skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags |= SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS;
> > > > > +     skb_tx_timestamp(skb);
> > > > 
> > > > Doesn't this interfere with skb_tstamp_tx call in the completion flow
> > > > (mlx5e_consume_skb)?
> > > 
> > > skb_tstamp_tx() only takes care of hardware timestamp in this case.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > What happens if both flags (SKBTX_SW_TSTAMP / SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP) are set
> > > > Is it possible?
> > > 
> > > If only these two are set, only hardware timestamp will be passed to
> > > the userspace because of the SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_TX_SWHW limit in
> > > __skb_tstamp_tx().
> > > 
> > > If users expect to see both timestamps, then
> > > SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_TX_SWHW has to be set.
> > 
> > Right, skb_tx_timestamp does nothing and bails out if it detects
> > SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS. And skb_tstamp_tx in mlx5e_consume_skb handles
> > only (and will trigger only for) HW tstamp case.
> 
> I see.
> Patch LGTM, except for the function name nit, pointed out in an earlier
> comment.
> We could remove the "hw" from function name mlx5e_tx_skb_update_hwts_flags.

SG, will repost with a rename!