diff mbox series

net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set

Message ID 1576838905-26817-1-git-send-email-viacheslavo@mellanox.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: Raslan Darawsheh
Headers
Series net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/iol-testing success Testing PASS
ci/iol-mellanox-Performance success Performance Testing PASS
ci/travis-robot warning Travis build: failed
ci/iol-intel-Performance success Performance Testing PASS
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK

Commit Message

Slava Ovsiienko Dec. 20, 2019, 10:48 a.m. UTC 
  The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with
legacy MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no
valid selection for these options, patch adds the missing
routine.

Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx descriptors")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
---
 drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

Comments

Matan Azrad Jan. 6, 2020, 2:52 p.m. UTC | #1 
From: Viacheslav Ovsiienko
> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy MPW
> and without inline was missed, and there was no valid selection for these
> options, patch adds the missing routine.
> 
> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx descriptors")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
Acked-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Raslan Darawsheh Jan. 8, 2020, 8:51 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:48 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst routines set
> 
> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with
> legacy MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no
> valid selection for these options, patch adds the missing
> routine.
> 
> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx descriptors")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> index a7f3bff..57804f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> @@ -4984,6 +4984,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> 
> +MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(mc_mpw,
> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> +
>  MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(i_mpw,
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> @@ -5140,6 +5144,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> 
> +MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(mc_mpw,
> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> +
>  MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(i_mpw,
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE |
> MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>  		DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
>  			       " for requested offloads %04X",
>  				dev->data->port_id, olx);
> +		assert(false);
>  		return NULL;
>  	}
>  	DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
> --
> 1.8.3.1


Patch applied to next-net-mlx,

Kindest regards,
Raslan Darawsheh
Ferruh Yigit Jan. 8, 2020, 2:53 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with
> legacy MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no
> valid selection for these options, patch adds the missing
> routine.
> 
> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx descriptors")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> index a7f3bff..57804f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> @@ -4984,6 +4984,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>  
> +MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(mc_mpw,
> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> +
>  MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(i_mpw,
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> @@ -5140,6 +5144,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>  
> +MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(mc_mpw,
> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> +
>  MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(i_mpw,
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>  		DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
>  			       " for requested offloads %04X",
>  				dev->data->port_id, olx);
> +		assert(false);

Hi Slave,

I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally, specially in a
code that debug level log is printed.

>  		return NULL;
>  	}
>  	DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
>
Ferruh Yigit Jan. 8, 2020, 2:54 p.m. UTC | #4 
On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with
>> legacy MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no
>> valid selection for these options, patch adds the missing
>> routine.
>>
>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx descriptors")
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 9 +++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
>> index a7f3bff..57804f5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
>> @@ -4984,6 +4984,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>>  
>> +MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(mc_mpw,
>> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
>> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>> +
>>  MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(i_mpw,
>>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>> @@ -5140,6 +5144,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>>  
>> +MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(mc_mpw,
>> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
>> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>> +
>>  MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(i_mpw,
>>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
>>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>>  		DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
>>  			       " for requested offloads %04X",
>>  				dev->data->port_id, olx);
>> +		assert(false);
> 
> Hi Slave,

Sorry Slava, it must be auto-correction, I recognized a few milliseconds too late.

> 
> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally, specially in a
> code that debug level log is printed.
> 
>>  		return NULL;
>>  	}
>>  	DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
>>
>
Slava Ovsiienko Jan. 8, 2020, 3:50 p.m. UTC | #5 
Hi, Ferruh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; stable@dpdk.org;
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
> routines set
> 
> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> >> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy MPW
> >> and without inline was missed, and there was no valid selection for
> >> these options, patch adds the missing routine.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
> >> descriptors")
> >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 9 +++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> >> b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c index a7f3bff..57804f5 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
> >> @@ -4984,6 +4984,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> >>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> >>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >>
> >> +MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(mc_mpw,
> >> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> >> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >> +
> >>  MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(i_mpw,
> >>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> >>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >> @@ -5140,6 +5144,10 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> >>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> >>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >>
> >> +MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(mc_mpw,
> >> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
> >> +		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >> +
> >>  MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(i_mpw,
> >>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
> >>  		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
> >> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> >>  		DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
> >>  			       " for requested offloads %04X",
> >>  				dev->data->port_id, olx);
> >> +		assert(false);
> >
> > Hi Slave,
> 
> Sorry Slava, it must be auto-correction, I recognized a few milliseconds too
> late.
Just forget, it is not a problem. This typo happens from time to time 😊
And it seems to be a smaller evil than a permanent torturing my colleagues
with my full name "Viacheslav" 😊

> 
> >
> > I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
> > specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
> >
> >>  		return NULL;
> >>  	}
> >>  	DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"

Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result returned by 
mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check against NULL and
report an error.  "assert" is a temporary solution till this upgrade (in debug mode
we have a lot of messages and break on assert helps to locate the problem quickly,
reporting error will do the same).

With best regards, Slava
Ferruh Yigit Jan. 8, 2020, 3:54 p.m. UTC | #6 
On 1/8/2020 3:50 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> Hi, Ferruh
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
>> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; stable@dpdk.org;
>> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
>> routines set
>>
>> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
>>>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy MPW
>>>> and without inline was missed, and there was no valid selection for
>>>> these options, patch adds the missing routine.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
>>>> descriptors")
>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>

<...>

>>>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>>>>  		DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
>>>>  			       " for requested offloads %04X",
>>>>  				dev->data->port_id, olx);
>>>> +		assert(false);

<...>

> 
>>
>>>
>>> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
>>> specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
>>>
>>>>  		return NULL;
>>>>  	}
>>>>  	DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
> 
> Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result returned by 
> mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check against NULL and
> report an error.  "assert" is a temporary solution till this upgrade (in debug mode
> we have a lot of messages and break on assert helps to locate the problem quickly,
> reporting error will do the same).
> 

Can it be possible to drop the patch from mlx tree and prepare a new version
without 'assert'?
Slava Ovsiienko Jan. 9, 2020, 9:03 a.m. UTC | #7 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 17:55
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; stable@dpdk.org;
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
> routines set
> 
> On 1/8/2020 3:50 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> > Hi, Ferruh
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
> >> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> >> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> >> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
> >> burst routines set
> >>
> >> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> >>>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy
> >>>> MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no valid selection
> >>>> for these options, patch adds the missing routine.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
> >>>> descriptors")
> >>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> 
> <...>
> 
> >>>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> >>>>  		DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
> >>>>  			       " for requested offloads %04X",
> >>>>  				dev->data->port_id, olx);
> >>>> +		assert(false);
> 
> <...>
> 
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
> >>> specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
> >>>
> >>>>  		return NULL;
> >>>>  	}
> >>>>  	DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
> >
> > Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result returned by
> > mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check against NULL and
> > report an error.  "assert" is a temporary solution till this upgrade
> > (in debug mode we have a lot of messages and break on assert helps to
> > locate the problem quickly, reporting error will do the same).
> >
> 
> Can it be possible to drop the patch from mlx tree and prepare a new version
> without 'assert'?
The selection routine error handling is rather generic and is not merely related to ConnectX-4LX.
I propose to prepare the dedicated patch, what do you  think?

With best regards, Slava
Ferruh Yigit Jan. 9, 2020, 10:50 a.m. UTC | #8 
On 1/9/2020 9:03 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 17:55
>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
>> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; stable@dpdk.org;
>> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
>> routines set
>>
>> On 1/8/2020 3:50 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
>>> Hi, Ferruh
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
>>>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>>>> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
>>>> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
>>>> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
>>>> burst routines set
>>>>
>>>> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
>>>>>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy
>>>>>> MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no valid selection
>>>>>> for these options, patch adds the missing routine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
>>>>>> descriptors")
>>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>>>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>>>>>>  		DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
>>>>>>  			       " for requested offloads %04X",
>>>>>>  				dev->data->port_id, olx);
>>>>>> +		assert(false);
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
>>>>> specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>  		return NULL;
>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>  	DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result returned by
>>> mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check against NULL and
>>> report an error.  "assert" is a temporary solution till this upgrade
>>> (in debug mode we have a lot of messages and break on assert helps to
>>> locate the problem quickly, reporting error will do the same).
>>>
>>
>> Can it be possible to drop the patch from mlx tree and prepare a new version
>> without 'assert'?
> The selection routine error handling is rather generic and is not merely related to ConnectX-4LX.
> I propose to prepare the dedicated patch, what do you  think?
> 

My concern is with the assert, the error handling can be another patch, but can
we have this change without an assert? Or perhaps a RTE_ASSERT() which is for debug.
Slava Ovsiienko Jan. 9, 2020, 11:10 a.m. UTC | #9 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 12:50
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; stable@dpdk.org;
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
> routines set
> 
> On 1/9/2020 9:03 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 17:55
> >> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> >> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> >> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
> >> burst routines set
> >>
> >> On 1/8/2020 3:50 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> >>> Hi, Ferruh
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
> >>>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >>>> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> >>>> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> >>>> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
> >>>> burst routines set
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> >>>>>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with legacy
> >>>>>> MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no valid
> >>>>>> selection for these options, patch adds the missing routine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
> >>>>>> descriptors")
> >>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>>>>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> >>>>>>  		DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx
> function"
> >>>>>>  			       " for requested offloads %04X",
> >>>>>>  				dev->data->port_id, olx);
> >>>>>> +		assert(false);
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
> >>>>> specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>  		return NULL;
> >>>>>>  	}
> >>>>>>  	DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result returned
> >>> by mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check against NULL
> >>> and report an error.  "assert" is a temporary solution till this
> >>> upgrade (in debug mode we have a lot of messages and break on assert
> >>> helps to locate the problem quickly, reporting error will do the same).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Can it be possible to drop the patch from mlx tree and prepare a new
> >> version without 'assert'?
> > The selection routine error handling is rather generic and is not merely
> related to ConnectX-4LX.
> > I propose to prepare the dedicated patch, what do you  think?
> >
> 
> My concern is with the assert, the error handling can be another patch, but
> can we have this change without an assert? 

Yes, please: http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/64340/

With best regards, Slava

PS. Removing this assert urges me to add error handling ASAP 😊
Raslan Darawsheh Jan. 9, 2020, 2:27 p.m. UTC | #10 
Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 1:10 PM
> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
> routines set
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 12:50
> > To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> > <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> stable@dpdk.org;
> > Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx burst
> > routines set
> >
> > On 1/9/2020 9:03 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 17:55
> > >> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > >> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> > >> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> > >> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
> > >> burst routines set
> > >>
> > >> On 1/8/2020 3:50 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> > >>> Hi, Ferruh
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 16:55
> > >>>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > >>>> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> > >>>> <rasland@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>;
> > >>>> stable@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix ConnectX-4LX Tx
> > >>>> burst routines set
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 1/8/2020 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > >>>>> On 12/20/2019 10:48 AM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> > >>>>>> The tx_burst routine supporting multi-segment packets with
> > >>>>>> legacy MPW and without inline was missed, and there was no
> > >>>>>> valid selection for these options, patch adds the missing routine.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Fixes: 82e75f8323bf ("net/mlx5: fix legacy multi-packet Tx
> > >>>>>> descriptors")
> > >>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> > >>
> > >> <...>
> > >>
> > >>>>>> @@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
> > >>>>>>  		DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx
> > function"
> > >>>>>>  			       " for requested offloads %04X",
> > >>>>>>  				dev->data->port_id, olx);
> > >>>>>> +		assert(false);
> > >>
> > >> <...>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think we should avoid PMDs calling the assert unconditionally,
> > >>>>> specially in a code that debug level log is printed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>  		return NULL;
> > >>>>>>  	}
> > >>>>>>  	DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, I agree. We just do not have the check for the result
> > >>> returned by mlx5_select_tx_function(). I think we should check
> > >>> against NULL and report an error.  "assert" is a temporary
> > >>> solution till this upgrade (in debug mode we have a lot of
> > >>> messages and break on assert helps to locate the problem quickly,
> reporting error will do the same).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Can it be possible to drop the patch from mlx tree and prepare a
> > >> new version without 'assert'?
> > > The selection routine error handling is rather generic and is not
> > > merely
> > related to ConnectX-4LX.
> > > I propose to prepare the dedicated patch, what do you  think?
> > >
> >
> > My concern is with the assert, the error handling can be another
> > patch, but can we have this change without an assert?
> 
> Yes, please: http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/64340/
> 
> With best regards, Slava
> 
> PS. Removing this assert urges me to add error handling ASAP 😊

This patch has been removed from next-net-mlx,
I'll apply the v2

Kindest regards,
Raslan Darawsheh
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
index a7f3bff..57804f5 100644
--- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
@@ -4984,6 +4984,10 @@  enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
 		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
 		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
 
+MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(mc_mpw,
+		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
+		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
+
 MLX5_TXOFF_DECL(i_mpw,
 		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
 		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
@@ -5140,6 +5144,10 @@  enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
 		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
 		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
 
+MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(mc_mpw,
+		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MULTI | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_CSUM |
+		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
+
 MLX5_TXOFF_INFO(i_mpw,
 		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_INLINE | MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_EMPW |
 		MLX5_TXOFF_CONFIG_MPW)
@@ -5297,6 +5305,7 @@  enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
 		DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has no selected Tx function"
 			       " for requested offloads %04X",
 				dev->data->port_id, olx);
+		assert(false);
 		return NULL;
 	}
 	DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "port %u has selected Tx function"