diff mbox series

[v2,01/10] net/ngbe: fix Rx buffer size in configure register

Message ID 20230202092132.3271910-2-jiawenwu@trustnetic.com (mailing list archive)
State Rejected, archived
Delegated to: Ferruh Yigit
Headers
Series Wangxun fixes and new supports |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/iol-testing warning apply patch failure
ci/loongarch-compilation warning apply patch failure

Commit Message

Jiawen Wu Feb. 2, 2023, 9:21 a.m. UTC 
  When buffer size is less than 1K, round down makes it 0, which is an
error value.

Fixes: 62fc35e63d0e ("net/ngbe: support Rx queue start/stop")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>
---
 drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Ferruh Yigit Feb. 8, 2023, 10:28 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 2/2/2023 9:21 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> When buffer size is less than 1K, round down makes it 0, which is an
> error value.
> 
> Fixes: 62fc35e63d0e ("net/ngbe: support Rx queue start/stop")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> index 9fd24fa444..9a646cb6a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> @@ -2944,7 +2944,10 @@ ngbe_dev_rx_init(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>  		 */
>  		buf_size = (uint16_t)(rte_pktmbuf_data_room_size(rxq->mb_pool) -
>  			RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM);
> -		buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
> +		if (buf_size < 1024)
> +			buf_size = ROUND_UP(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);

Back to original problem statement in previous version, can't this cause
HW to receive packets exceeding the buffer size?

If HW accepts buffer size in multiple of 1K, does this mean any buffer
size less than 1K is an error condition for this HW?

> +		else
> +			buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
>  		srrctl |= NGBE_RXCFG_PKTLEN(buf_size);
>  
>  		wr32(hw, NGBE_RXCFG(rxq->reg_idx), srrctl);
Jiawen Wu Feb. 9, 2023, 9 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:28 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/2/2023 9:21 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> > When buffer size is less than 1K, round down makes it 0, which is an
> > error value.
> >
> > Fixes: 62fc35e63d0e ("net/ngbe: support Rx queue start/stop")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> > b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c index 9fd24fa444..9a646cb6a7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> > @@ -2944,7 +2944,10 @@ ngbe_dev_rx_init(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> >  		 */
> >  		buf_size = (uint16_t)(rte_pktmbuf_data_room_size(rxq->mb_pool) -
> >  			RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM);
> > -		buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
> > +		if (buf_size < 1024)
> > +			buf_size = ROUND_UP(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
> 
> Back to original problem statement in previous version, can't this cause HW to
> receive packets exceeding the buffer size?
> 
> If HW accepts buffer size in multiple of 1K, does this mean any buffer size less than
> 1K is an error condition for this HW?
> 

After rechecking the code, the minimum buffer size is limited to 1K by the txgbe/ngbe [1].
I think v1 patch for txgbe is enough.

[1]
static int
txgbe_dev_info_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info)
{
	struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
	struct txgbe_hw *hw = TXGBE_DEV_HW(dev);

	dev_info->min_rx_bufsize = 1024;


> > +		else
> > +			buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
> >  		srrctl |= NGBE_RXCFG_PKTLEN(buf_size);
> >
> >  		wr32(hw, NGBE_RXCFG(rxq->reg_idx), srrctl);
> 
>
Jiawen Wu Feb. 14, 2023, 8:15 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Thursday, February 9, 2023 5:00 PM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:28 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 2/2/2023 9:21 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> > > When buffer size is less than 1K, round down makes it 0, which is an
> > > error value.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 62fc35e63d0e ("net/ngbe: support Rx queue start/stop")
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c | 5 ++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> > > b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c index 9fd24fa444..9a646cb6a7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> > > @@ -2944,7 +2944,10 @@ ngbe_dev_rx_init(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> > >  		 */
> > >  		buf_size = (uint16_t)(rte_pktmbuf_data_room_size(rxq->mb_pool) -
> > >  			RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM);
> > > -		buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
> > > +		if (buf_size < 1024)
> > > +			buf_size = ROUND_UP(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
> >
> > Back to original problem statement in previous version, can't this
> > cause HW to receive packets exceeding the buffer size?
> >
> > If HW accepts buffer size in multiple of 1K, does this mean any buffer
> > size less than 1K is an error condition for this HW?
> >
> 
> After rechecking the code, the minimum buffer size is limited to 1K by the
> txgbe/ngbe [1].
> I think v1 patch for txgbe is enough.
> 
> [1]
> static int
> txgbe_dev_info_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info) {
> 	struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
> 	struct txgbe_hw *hw = TXGBE_DEV_HW(dev);
> 
> 	dev_info->min_rx_bufsize = 1024;
> 
> 
> > > +		else
> > > +			buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
> > >  		srrctl |= NGBE_RXCFG_PKTLEN(buf_size);
> > >
> > >  		wr32(hw, NGBE_RXCFG(rxq->reg_idx), srrctl);
> >
> >
> 

Hi Ferruh,

Is my proposal feasible or do I need to send v3 patch for it?
Ferruh Yigit Feb. 14, 2023, 9:55 a.m. UTC | #4 
On 2/14/2023 8:15 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2023 5:00 PM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:28 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2023 9:21 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
>>>> When buffer size is less than 1K, round down makes it 0, which is an
>>>> error value.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 62fc35e63d0e ("net/ngbe: support Rx queue start/stop")
>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c | 5 ++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c index 9fd24fa444..9a646cb6a7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
>>>> @@ -2944,7 +2944,10 @@ ngbe_dev_rx_init(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>>>  		 */
>>>>  		buf_size = (uint16_t)(rte_pktmbuf_data_room_size(rxq->mb_pool) -
>>>>  			RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM);
>>>> -		buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
>>>> +		if (buf_size < 1024)
>>>> +			buf_size = ROUND_UP(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
>>>
>>> Back to original problem statement in previous version, can't this
>>> cause HW to receive packets exceeding the buffer size?
>>>
>>> If HW accepts buffer size in multiple of 1K, does this mean any buffer
>>> size less than 1K is an error condition for this HW?
>>>
>>
>> After rechecking the code, the minimum buffer size is limited to 1K by the
>> txgbe/ngbe [1].
>> I think v1 patch for txgbe is enough.
>>
>> [1]
>> static int
>> txgbe_dev_info_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info) {
>> 	struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
>> 	struct txgbe_hw *hw = TXGBE_DEV_HW(dev);
>>
>> 	dev_info->min_rx_bufsize = 1024;
>>
>>
>>>> +		else
>>>> +			buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
>>>>  		srrctl |= NGBE_RXCFG_PKTLEN(buf_size);
>>>>
>>>>  		wr32(hw, NGBE_RXCFG(rxq->reg_idx), srrctl);
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> Hi Ferruh,
> 
> Is my proposal feasible or do I need to send v3 patch for it?
> 
> 

Sorry Jiawen, I missed your response.

Yes, you are right, 'dev_info->min_rx_bufsize' prevents user to set
buffer size less than 1K, so change in V1 is good.

There were some other changes too, instead of getting this patch from
v1, can you please send a new version with latest updates?
Ferruh Yigit Feb. 15, 2023, 9:35 a.m. UTC | #5 
On 2/14/2023 9:55 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/14/2023 8:15 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 9, 2023 5:00 PM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:28 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2023 9:21 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
>>>>> When buffer size is less than 1K, round down makes it 0, which is an
>>>>> error value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 62fc35e63d0e ("net/ngbe: support Rx queue start/stop")
>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c | 5 ++++-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
>>>>> b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c index 9fd24fa444..9a646cb6a7 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
>>>>> @@ -2944,7 +2944,10 @@ ngbe_dev_rx_init(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>>>>  		 */
>>>>>  		buf_size = (uint16_t)(rte_pktmbuf_data_room_size(rxq->mb_pool) -
>>>>>  			RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM);
>>>>> -		buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
>>>>> +		if (buf_size < 1024)
>>>>> +			buf_size = ROUND_UP(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
>>>>
>>>> Back to original problem statement in previous version, can't this
>>>> cause HW to receive packets exceeding the buffer size?
>>>>
>>>> If HW accepts buffer size in multiple of 1K, does this mean any buffer
>>>> size less than 1K is an error condition for this HW?
>>>>
>>>
>>> After rechecking the code, the minimum buffer size is limited to 1K by the
>>> txgbe/ngbe [1].
>>> I think v1 patch for txgbe is enough.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> static int
>>> txgbe_dev_info_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info) {
>>> 	struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
>>> 	struct txgbe_hw *hw = TXGBE_DEV_HW(dev);
>>>
>>> 	dev_info->min_rx_bufsize = 1024;
>>>
>>>
>>>>> +		else
>>>>> +			buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
>>>>>  		srrctl |= NGBE_RXCFG_PKTLEN(buf_size);
>>>>>
>>>>>  		wr32(hw, NGBE_RXCFG(rxq->reg_idx), srrctl);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Ferruh,
>>
>> Is my proposal feasible or do I need to send v3 patch for it?
>>
>>
> 
> Sorry Jiawen, I missed your response.
> 
> Yes, you are right, 'dev_info->min_rx_bufsize' prevents user to set
> buffer size less than 1K, so change in V1 is good.
> 
> There were some other changes too, instead of getting this patch from
> v1, can you please send a new version with latest updates?

We can drop 1/10 and you have sent a v3 for 2/10, right?
Jiawen Wu Feb. 15, 2023, 10:09 a.m. UTC | #6 
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 5:36 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/14/2023 9:55 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 2/14/2023 8:15 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> >> On Thursday, February 9, 2023 5:00 PM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:28 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>> On 2/2/2023 9:21 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> >>>>> When buffer size is less than 1K, round down makes it 0, which is
> >>>>> an error value.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: 62fc35e63d0e ("net/ngbe: support Rx queue start/stop")
> >>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c | 5 ++++-
> >>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> >>>>> b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c index 9fd24fa444..9a646cb6a7 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
> >>>>> @@ -2944,7 +2944,10 @@ ngbe_dev_rx_init(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> >>>>>  		 */
> >>>>>  		buf_size = (uint16_t)(rte_pktmbuf_data_room_size(rxq->mb_pool) -
> >>>>>  			RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM);
> >>>>> -		buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
> >>>>> +		if (buf_size < 1024)
> >>>>> +			buf_size = ROUND_UP(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
> >>>>
> >>>> Back to original problem statement in previous version, can't this
> >>>> cause HW to receive packets exceeding the buffer size?
> >>>>
> >>>> If HW accepts buffer size in multiple of 1K, does this mean any
> >>>> buffer size less than 1K is an error condition for this HW?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> After rechecking the code, the minimum buffer size is limited to 1K
> >>> by the txgbe/ngbe [1].
> >>> I think v1 patch for txgbe is enough.
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> static int
> >>> txgbe_dev_info_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info) {
> >>> 	struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
> >>> 	struct txgbe_hw *hw = TXGBE_DEV_HW(dev);
> >>>
> >>> 	dev_info->min_rx_bufsize = 1024;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> +		else
> >>>>> +			buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
> >>>>>  		srrctl |= NGBE_RXCFG_PKTLEN(buf_size);
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  		wr32(hw, NGBE_RXCFG(rxq->reg_idx), srrctl);
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Ferruh,
> >>
> >> Is my proposal feasible or do I need to send v3 patch for it?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Sorry Jiawen, I missed your response.
> >
> > Yes, you are right, 'dev_info->min_rx_bufsize' prevents user to set
> > buffer size less than 1K, so change in V1 is good.
> >
> > There were some other changes too, instead of getting this patch from
> > v1, can you please send a new version with latest updates?
> 
> We can drop 1/10 and you have sent a v3 for 2/10, right?
> 
> 

Yes.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
index 9fd24fa444..9a646cb6a7 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_rxtx.c
@@ -2944,7 +2944,10 @@  ngbe_dev_rx_init(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
 		 */
 		buf_size = (uint16_t)(rte_pktmbuf_data_room_size(rxq->mb_pool) -
 			RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM);
-		buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
+		if (buf_size < 1024)
+			buf_size = ROUND_UP(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
+		else
+			buf_size = ROUND_DOWN(buf_size, 0x1 << 10);
 		srrctl |= NGBE_RXCFG_PKTLEN(buf_size);
 
 		wr32(hw, NGBE_RXCFG(rxq->reg_idx), srrctl);