diff mbox

[dpdk-dev,v1,1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring descriptor fields

Message ID 1425895968-8597-2-git-send-email-vladz@cloudius-systems.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded, archived
Headers

Commit Message

Vladislav Zolotarov March 9, 2015, 10:12 a.m. UTC 
Fixed the above in ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs() and in ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts().

Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com>
---
 lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 13 +++++++------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Ananyev, Konstantin March 9, 2015, 10:29 a.m. UTC | #1 
Hi Vlad,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vlad Zolotarov
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:13 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring descriptor
> fields
> 
> Fixed the above in ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs() and in ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com>
> ---
>  lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 13 +++++++------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> index 9ecf3e5..b033e04 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> @@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
>  	struct igb_rx_entry *rxep;
>  	struct rte_mbuf *mb;
>  	uint16_t alloc_idx;
> -	uint64_t dma_addr;
> +	__le64 dma_addr;

Wonder Why you changed from uint64_t to __le64 here?
Effectively __le64 is the same a uint64_t, and I think it is better to use always the same type across all PMD code for consistency.
Konstantin 


>  	int diag, i;
> 
>  	/* allocate buffers in bulk directly into the S/W ring */
> @@ -1051,7 +1051,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
>  		mb->port = rxq->port_id;
> 
>  		/* populate the descriptors */
> -		dma_addr = (uint64_t)mb->buf_physaddr + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
> +		dma_addr = rte_cpu_to_le_64(RTE_MBUF_DATA_DMA_ADDR_DEFAULT(mb));
>  		rxdp[i].read.hdr_addr = dma_addr;
>  		rxdp[i].read.pkt_addr = dma_addr;
>  	}
> @@ -1559,13 +1559,14 @@ ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
>  		first_seg->ol_flags = pkt_flags;
> 
>  		if (likely(pkt_flags & PKT_RX_RSS_HASH))
> -			first_seg->hash.rss = rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss;
> +			first_seg->hash.rss =
> +				    rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss);
>  		else if (pkt_flags & PKT_RX_FDIR) {
>  			first_seg->hash.fdir.hash =
> -				(uint16_t)((rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
> -					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK);
> +			    rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
> +					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK;
>  			first_seg->hash.fdir.id =
> -				rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id;
> +			  rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id);
>  		}
> 
>  		/* Prefetch data of first segment, if configured to do so. */
> --
> 2.1.0
Vladislav Zolotarov March 9, 2015, 12:43 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 03/09/15 12:29, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Vlad,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vlad Zolotarov
>> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:13 AM
>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring descriptor
>> fields
>>
>> Fixed the above in ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs() and in ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com>
>> ---
>>   lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 13 +++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>> index 9ecf3e5..b033e04 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>> @@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
>>   	struct igb_rx_entry *rxep;
>>   	struct rte_mbuf *mb;
>>   	uint16_t alloc_idx;
>> -	uint64_t dma_addr;
>> +	__le64 dma_addr;
> Wonder Why you changed from uint64_t to __le64 here?
> Effectively __le64 is the same a uint64_t,

I'm afraid the above it's not completely correct. See below.

> and I think it is better to use always the same type across all PMD code for consistency.

Pls., note that "dma_addr" is only used (see below)...

> Konstantin
>
>
>>   	int diag, i;
>>
>>   	/* allocate buffers in bulk directly into the S/W ring */
>> @@ -1051,7 +1051,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
>>   		mb->port = rxq->port_id;
>>
>>   		/* populate the descriptors */
>> -		dma_addr = (uint64_t)mb->buf_physaddr + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
>> +		dma_addr = rte_cpu_to_le_64(RTE_MBUF_DATA_DMA_ADDR_DEFAULT(mb));
>>   		rxdp[i].read.hdr_addr = dma_addr;
>>   		rxdp[i].read.pkt_addr = dma_addr;

here. ;) And the type of both hdr_addr and pkt_addr is __le64.
I don't exactly understand what do u mean by "use the same type across 
all PMD code for consistency" - there are a lot of types used in the PMD 
code and __le64 is one of them... ;)

Now more seriously, let's recall what is the semantics of the __leXX 
types - they represent the integer in the "little endian" format. Here, 
NIC expects the physical address in a little endian format, thus the 
descriptor is defined the way it is defined - using __le64. The same 
relates to dma_addr local variable in this patch - it contains the 
physical (more correctly "DMA-able") address of the Rx buffer in the 
form NIC expects it to be written in the descriptor.

So, why to use __leXX anyway? - Debugging the (invalid) endianess is a 
real headache. Therefore there are a few static code analysis tools like 
"sparse" that allow to detect such inconsistencies (see here 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse) and __leXX is a helper to allow 
tools like sparse to detect such problems.

In addition after spending some time writing patches for Linux netdev 
list u develop a strong habit for such stuff - Dave and others are very 
strict about such things... ;)

So, is it the same as uint64_t? I guess now it's clear why it is now... ;)

>>   	}
>> @@ -1559,13 +1559,14 @@ ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
>>   		first_seg->ol_flags = pkt_flags;
>>
>>   		if (likely(pkt_flags & PKT_RX_RSS_HASH))
>> -			first_seg->hash.rss = rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss;
>> +			first_seg->hash.rss =
>> +				    rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss);
>>   		else if (pkt_flags & PKT_RX_FDIR) {
>>   			first_seg->hash.fdir.hash =
>> -				(uint16_t)((rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
>> -					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK);
>> +			    rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
>> +					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK;
>>   			first_seg->hash.fdir.id =
>> -				rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id;
>> +			  rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id);
>>   		}
>>
>>   		/* Prefetch data of first segment, if configured to do so. */
>> --
>> 2.1.0
Ananyev, Konstantin March 9, 2015, 4:35 p.m. UTC | #3 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz@cloudius-systems.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:43 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring
> descriptor fields
> 
> 
> 
> On 03/09/15 12:29, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > Hi Vlad,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vlad Zolotarov
> >> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:13 AM
> >> To: dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring
> descriptor
> >> fields
> >>
> >> Fixed the above in ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs() and in ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com>
> >> ---
> >>   lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 13 +++++++------
> >>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> >> index 9ecf3e5..b033e04 100644
> >> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> >> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> >> @@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
> >>   	struct igb_rx_entry *rxep;
> >>   	struct rte_mbuf *mb;
> >>   	uint16_t alloc_idx;
> >> -	uint64_t dma_addr;
> >> +	__le64 dma_addr;
> > Wonder Why you changed from uint64_t to __le64 here?
> > Effectively __le64 is the same a uint64_t,
> 
> I'm afraid the above it's not completely correct. See below.
> 
> > and I think it is better to use always the same type across all PMD code for consistency.
> 
> Pls., note that "dma_addr" is only used (see below)...
> 
> > Konstantin
> >
> >
> >>   	int diag, i;
> >>
> >>   	/* allocate buffers in bulk directly into the S/W ring */
> >> @@ -1051,7 +1051,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
> >>   		mb->port = rxq->port_id;
> >>
> >>   		/* populate the descriptors */
> >> -		dma_addr = (uint64_t)mb->buf_physaddr + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
> >> +		dma_addr = rte_cpu_to_le_64(RTE_MBUF_DATA_DMA_ADDR_DEFAULT(mb));
> >>   		rxdp[i].read.hdr_addr = dma_addr;
> >>   		rxdp[i].read.pkt_addr = dma_addr;
> 
> here. ;) And the type of both hdr_addr and pkt_addr is __le64.
> I don't exactly understand what do u mean by "use the same type across
> all PMD code for consistency" - there are a lot of types used in the PMD
> code and __le64 is one of them... ;)
> 

> Now more seriously, let's recall what is the semantics of the __leXX
> types - they represent the integer in the "little endian" format. Here,
> NIC expects the physical address in a little endian format, thus the
> descriptor is defined the way it is defined - using __le64. The same
> relates to dma_addr local variable in this patch - it contains the
> physical (more correctly "DMA-able") address of the Rx buffer in the
> form NIC expects it to be written in the descriptor.
> 
> So, why to use __leXX anyway? - Debugging the (invalid) endianess is a
> real headache. Therefore there are a few static code analysis tools like
> "sparse" that allow to detect such inconsistencies (see here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse) and __leXX is a helper to allow
> tools like sparse to detect such problems.

I meant that for librte_pmd_ixgbe these types are equivalent:
lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe/ixgbe_type.h:
#ifndef __le64
#define __le64  u64
#endif

lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe/ixgbe_osdep.h:
typedef uint64_t       u64;

So why not to use just uint64_t as the rest if librt_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_*.[c,h]?

Have to admit, didn't know about the sparse and that ability.
Seems like useful one.
Though, as I understand, to make any use of it with DPDK,
we'll have to use sparse specific attributes:
In one of our files define __le64 as '__attribute__((bitwise)) uint64_t' 
or something similar, right?
Otherwise there is no much point in using all these '__leXX' types,
except probably to show an intention, correct? 
Konstantin

> 
> In addition after spending some time writing patches for Linux netdev
> list u develop a strong habit for such stuff - Dave and others are very
> strict about such things... ;)
> 
> So, is it the same as uint64_t? I guess now it's clear why it is now... ;)
> 
> >>   	}
> >> @@ -1559,13 +1559,14 @@ ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
> >>   		first_seg->ol_flags = pkt_flags;
> >>
> >>   		if (likely(pkt_flags & PKT_RX_RSS_HASH))
> >> -			first_seg->hash.rss = rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss;
> >> +			first_seg->hash.rss =
> >> +				    rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss);
> >>   		else if (pkt_flags & PKT_RX_FDIR) {
> >>   			first_seg->hash.fdir.hash =
> >> -				(uint16_t)((rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
> >> -					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK);
> >> +			    rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
> >> +					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK;
> >>   			first_seg->hash.fdir.id =
> >> -				rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id;
> >> +			  rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id);
> >>   		}
> >>
> >>   		/* Prefetch data of first segment, if configured to do so. */
> >> --
> >> 2.1.0
Vladislav Zolotarov March 9, 2015, 6:51 p.m. UTC | #4 
On 03/09/15 18:35, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz@cloudius-systems.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:43 PM
>> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring
>> descriptor fields
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/15 12:29, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>> Hi Vlad,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vlad Zolotarov
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:13 AM
>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring
>> descriptor
>>>> fields
>>>>
>>>> Fixed the above in ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs() and in ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 13 +++++++------
>>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>>>> index 9ecf3e5..b033e04 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>>>> @@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
>>>>    	struct igb_rx_entry *rxep;
>>>>    	struct rte_mbuf *mb;
>>>>    	uint16_t alloc_idx;
>>>> -	uint64_t dma_addr;
>>>> +	__le64 dma_addr;
>>> Wonder Why you changed from uint64_t to __le64 here?
>>> Effectively __le64 is the same a uint64_t,
>> I'm afraid the above it's not completely correct. See below.
>>
>>> and I think it is better to use always the same type across all PMD code for consistency.
>> Pls., note that "dma_addr" is only used (see below)...
>>
>>> Konstantin
>>>
>>>
>>>>    	int diag, i;
>>>>
>>>>    	/* allocate buffers in bulk directly into the S/W ring */
>>>> @@ -1051,7 +1051,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
>>>>    		mb->port = rxq->port_id;
>>>>
>>>>    		/* populate the descriptors */
>>>> -		dma_addr = (uint64_t)mb->buf_physaddr + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
>>>> +		dma_addr = rte_cpu_to_le_64(RTE_MBUF_DATA_DMA_ADDR_DEFAULT(mb));
>>>>    		rxdp[i].read.hdr_addr = dma_addr;
>>>>    		rxdp[i].read.pkt_addr = dma_addr;
>> here. ;) And the type of both hdr_addr and pkt_addr is __le64.
>> I don't exactly understand what do u mean by "use the same type across
>> all PMD code for consistency" - there are a lot of types used in the PMD
>> code and __le64 is one of them... ;)
>>
>> Now more seriously, let's recall what is the semantics of the __leXX
>> types - they represent the integer in the "little endian" format. Here,
>> NIC expects the physical address in a little endian format, thus the
>> descriptor is defined the way it is defined - using __le64. The same
>> relates to dma_addr local variable in this patch - it contains the
>> physical (more correctly "DMA-able") address of the Rx buffer in the
>> form NIC expects it to be written in the descriptor.
>>
>> So, why to use __leXX anyway? - Debugging the (invalid) endianess is a
>> real headache. Therefore there are a few static code analysis tools like
>> "sparse" that allow to detect such inconsistencies (see here
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse) and __leXX is a helper to allow
>> tools like sparse to detect such problems.
> I meant that for librte_pmd_ixgbe these types are equivalent:
> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe/ixgbe_type.h:
> #ifndef __le64
> #define __le64  u64
> #endif
>
> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe/ixgbe_osdep.h:
> typedef uint64_t       u64;
>
> So why not to use just uint64_t as the rest if librt_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_*.[c,h]?

I'm sorry but it seems to me that I have already mentioned that it 
wasn't the first time __leXX is used in the ixgbe_*.[ch]. All structs 
describing the descriptors of HW rings in ixgbe_type.h use them, so I'm 
just continuing what has already been done.

>
> Have to admit, didn't know about the sparse and that ability.
> Seems like useful one.
> Though, as I understand, to make any use of it with DPDK,
> we'll have to use sparse specific attributes:
> In one of our files define __le64 as '__attribute__((bitwise)) uint64_t'
> or something similar, right?

Right.

> Otherwise there is no much point in using all these '__leXX' types,
> except probably to show an intention, correct?

Not exactly. If u use these types everywhere where it's needed it's only 
6 lines to patch (__le16,32,64 + __be16,32,64) to make sparse work. And 
if u don't - there are thousands of lines to check somehow.

thanks,
vlad
> Konstantin
>
>> In addition after spending some time writing patches for Linux netdev
>> list u develop a strong habit for such stuff - Dave and others are very
>> strict about such things... ;)
>>
>> So, is it the same as uint64_t? I guess now it's clear why it is now... ;)
>>
>>>>    	}
>>>> @@ -1559,13 +1559,14 @@ ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
>>>>    		first_seg->ol_flags = pkt_flags;
>>>>
>>>>    		if (likely(pkt_flags & PKT_RX_RSS_HASH))
>>>> -			first_seg->hash.rss = rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss;
>>>> +			first_seg->hash.rss =
>>>> +				    rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss);
>>>>    		else if (pkt_flags & PKT_RX_FDIR) {
>>>>    			first_seg->hash.fdir.hash =
>>>> -				(uint16_t)((rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
>>>> -					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK);
>>>> +			    rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
>>>> +					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK;
>>>>    			first_seg->hash.fdir.id =
>>>> -				rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id;
>>>> +			  rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id);
>>>>    		}
>>>>
>>>>    		/* Prefetch data of first segment, if configured to do so. */
>>>> --
>>>> 2.1.0
Ananyev, Konstantin March 9, 2015, 7:27 p.m. UTC | #5 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz@cloudius-systems.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 6:51 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring
> descriptor fields
> 
> 
> 
> On 03/09/15 18:35, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz@cloudius-systems.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:43 PM
> >> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring
> >> descriptor fields
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/09/15 12:29, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >>> Hi Vlad,
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vlad Zolotarov
> >>>> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:13 AM
> >>>> To: dev@dpdk.org
> >>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] ixgbe: Use the rte_le_to_cpu_xx()/rte_cpu_to_le_xx() when reading/setting HW ring
> >> descriptor
> >>>> fields
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixed the above in ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs() and in ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts().
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 13 +++++++------
> >>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> >>>> index 9ecf3e5..b033e04 100644
> >>>> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> >>>> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> >>>> @@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
> >>>>    	struct igb_rx_entry *rxep;
> >>>>    	struct rte_mbuf *mb;
> >>>>    	uint16_t alloc_idx;
> >>>> -	uint64_t dma_addr;
> >>>> +	__le64 dma_addr;
> >>> Wonder Why you changed from uint64_t to __le64 here?
> >>> Effectively __le64 is the same a uint64_t,
> >> I'm afraid the above it's not completely correct. See below.
> >>
> >>> and I think it is better to use always the same type across all PMD code for consistency.
> >> Pls., note that "dma_addr" is only used (see below)...
> >>
> >>> Konstantin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>    	int diag, i;
> >>>>
> >>>>    	/* allocate buffers in bulk directly into the S/W ring */
> >>>> @@ -1051,7 +1051,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
> >>>>    		mb->port = rxq->port_id;
> >>>>
> >>>>    		/* populate the descriptors */
> >>>> -		dma_addr = (uint64_t)mb->buf_physaddr + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
> >>>> +		dma_addr = rte_cpu_to_le_64(RTE_MBUF_DATA_DMA_ADDR_DEFAULT(mb));
> >>>>    		rxdp[i].read.hdr_addr = dma_addr;
> >>>>    		rxdp[i].read.pkt_addr = dma_addr;
> >> here. ;) And the type of both hdr_addr and pkt_addr is __le64.
> >> I don't exactly understand what do u mean by "use the same type across
> >> all PMD code for consistency" - there are a lot of types used in the PMD
> >> code and __le64 is one of them... ;)
> >>
> >> Now more seriously, let's recall what is the semantics of the __leXX
> >> types - they represent the integer in the "little endian" format. Here,
> >> NIC expects the physical address in a little endian format, thus the
> >> descriptor is defined the way it is defined - using __le64. The same
> >> relates to dma_addr local variable in this patch - it contains the
> >> physical (more correctly "DMA-able") address of the Rx buffer in the
> >> form NIC expects it to be written in the descriptor.
> >>
> >> So, why to use __leXX anyway? - Debugging the (invalid) endianess is a
> >> real headache. Therefore there are a few static code analysis tools like
> >> "sparse" that allow to detect such inconsistencies (see here
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse) and __leXX is a helper to allow
> >> tools like sparse to detect such problems.
> > I meant that for librte_pmd_ixgbe these types are equivalent:
> > lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe/ixgbe_type.h:
> > #ifndef __le64
> > #define __le64  u64
> > #endif
> >
> > lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe/ixgbe_osdep.h:
> > typedef uint64_t       u64;
> >
> > So why not to use just uint64_t as the rest if librt_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_*.[c,h]?
> 
> I'm sorry but it seems to me that I have already mentioned that it
> wasn't the first time __leXX is used in the ixgbe_*.[ch]. All structs
> describing the descriptors of HW rings in ixgbe_type.h use them, so I'm
> just continuing what has already been done.
> 
> >
> > Have to admit, didn't know about the sparse and that ability.
> > Seems like useful one.
> > Though, as I understand, to make any use of it with DPDK,
> > we'll have to use sparse specific attributes:
> > In one of our files define __le64 as '__attribute__((bitwise)) uint64_t'
> > or something similar, right?
> 
> Right.
> 
> > Otherwise there is no much point in using all these '__leXX' types,
> > except probably to show an intention, correct?
> 
> Not exactly. If u use these types everywhere where it's needed it's only
> 6 lines to patch (__le16,32,64 + __be16,32,64) to make sparse work. And
> if u don't - there are thousands of lines to check somehow.

Yeh, though the thing is - we don't use it in all other similar places...
But probably you right and it is never too late to start with good habits. 
So I am convinced :)
Thanks
Konstantin

> 
> thanks,
> vlad
> > Konstantin
> >
> >> In addition after spending some time writing patches for Linux netdev
> >> list u develop a strong habit for such stuff - Dave and others are very
> >> strict about such things... ;)
> >>
> >> So, is it the same as uint64_t? I guess now it's clear why it is now... ;)
> >>
> >>>>    	}
> >>>> @@ -1559,13 +1559,14 @@ ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
> >>>>    		first_seg->ol_flags = pkt_flags;
> >>>>
> >>>>    		if (likely(pkt_flags & PKT_RX_RSS_HASH))
> >>>> -			first_seg->hash.rss = rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss;
> >>>> +			first_seg->hash.rss =
> >>>> +				    rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss);
> >>>>    		else if (pkt_flags & PKT_RX_FDIR) {
> >>>>    			first_seg->hash.fdir.hash =
> >>>> -				(uint16_t)((rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
> >>>> -					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK);
> >>>> +			    rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
> >>>> +					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK;
> >>>>    			first_seg->hash.fdir.id =
> >>>> -				rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id;
> >>>> +			  rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id);
> >>>>    		}
> >>>>
> >>>>    		/* Prefetch data of first segment, if configured to do so. */
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.1.0
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
index 9ecf3e5..b033e04 100644
--- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
+++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
@@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@  ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
 	struct igb_rx_entry *rxep;
 	struct rte_mbuf *mb;
 	uint16_t alloc_idx;
-	uint64_t dma_addr;
+	__le64 dma_addr;
 	int diag, i;
 
 	/* allocate buffers in bulk directly into the S/W ring */
@@ -1051,7 +1051,7 @@  ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
 		mb->port = rxq->port_id;
 
 		/* populate the descriptors */
-		dma_addr = (uint64_t)mb->buf_physaddr + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
+		dma_addr = rte_cpu_to_le_64(RTE_MBUF_DATA_DMA_ADDR_DEFAULT(mb));
 		rxdp[i].read.hdr_addr = dma_addr;
 		rxdp[i].read.pkt_addr = dma_addr;
 	}
@@ -1559,13 +1559,14 @@  ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
 		first_seg->ol_flags = pkt_flags;
 
 		if (likely(pkt_flags & PKT_RX_RSS_HASH))
-			first_seg->hash.rss = rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss;
+			first_seg->hash.rss =
+				    rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss);
 		else if (pkt_flags & PKT_RX_FDIR) {
 			first_seg->hash.fdir.hash =
-				(uint16_t)((rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
-					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK);
+			    rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum)
+					   & IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK;
 			first_seg->hash.fdir.id =
-				rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id;
+			  rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id);
 		}
 
 		/* Prefetch data of first segment, if configured to do so. */