Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9 6/7] ixgbevf: Add RSS Key query code

From: Vlad Zolotarov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:18:14 +0300

On 03/30/15 19:54, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
> On 03/30/2015 08:17 AM, Vlad Zolotarov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/30/15 18:10, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/30/2015 06:53 AM, Vlad Zolotarov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/30/15 01:04, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>>> On 03/29/2015 09:11 AM, Vlad Zolotarov wrote:
>>>>>> Add the ixgbevf_get_rss_key() function that queries the PF for an 
>>>>>> RSS Random Key
>>>>>> using a new VF-PF channel IXGBE_VF_GET_RSS_KEY command.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch adds the support for 82599 and x540 devices only. 
>>>>>> Support for other
>>>>>> devices will be added later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov <[email-masked]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> New in v9:
>>>>>>     - Reduce the support to 82599 and x540 devices only.
>>>>>>     - Added IXGBEVF_RSS_HASH_KEY_SIZE macro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New in v8:
>>>>>>     - Protect a mailbox access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New in v6:
>>>>>>     - Return a proper return code when an operation is blocked by 
>>>>>> PF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New in v2:
>>>>>>     - Added a more detailed patch description.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New in v1 (compared to RFC):
>>>>>>     - Use "if-else" statement instead of a "switch-case" for a 
>>>>>> single option case
>>>>>>       (in ixgbevf_get_rss_key()).
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf.h |  1 +
>>>>>>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/mbx.h     |  1 +
>>>>>>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/vf.c      | 66 
>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/vf.h      |  1 +
>>>>>>   4 files changed, 69 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf.h 
>>>>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf.h
>>>>>> index bc939a1..6771ae3 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf.h
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf.h
>>>>>> @@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ struct ixgbevf_ring {
>>>>>>   #define MAX_RX_QUEUES IXGBE_VF_MAX_RX_QUEUES
>>>>>>   #define MAX_TX_QUEUES IXGBE_VF_MAX_TX_QUEUES
>>>>>>   #define IXGBEVF_MAX_RSS_QUEUES    2
>>>>>> +#define IXGBEVF_RSS_HASH_KEY_SIZE    40
>>>>>>     #define IXGBEVF_DEFAULT_TXD    1024
>>>>>>   #define IXGBEVF_DEFAULT_RXD    512
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/mbx.h 
>>>>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/mbx.h
>>>>>> index 66e138b..82f44e0 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/mbx.h
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/mbx.h
>>>>>> @@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ enum ixgbe_pfvf_api_rev {
>>>>>>     /* mailbox API, version 1.2 VF requests */
>>>>>>   #define IXGBE_VF_GET_RETA    0x0a    /* VF request for RETA */
>>>>>> +#define IXGBE_VF_GET_RSS_KEY    0x0b    /* get RSS hash key */
>>>>>>     /* length of permanent address message returned from PF */
>>>>>>   #define IXGBE_VF_PERMADDR_MSG_LEN    4
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/vf.c 
>>>>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/vf.c
>>>>>> index 2676c0b..ec68145 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/vf.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/vf.c
>>>>>> @@ -301,6 +301,72 @@ static inline int 
>>>>>> ixgbevf_get_reta_locked(struct ixgbe_hw *hw, u32 *msgbuf,
>>>>>>       return 0;
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>   +static inline int ixgbevf_get_rss_key_locked(struct ixgbe_hw 
>>>>>> *hw, u8 *rss_key)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +    int err;
>>>>>> +    u32 msgbuf[IXGBE_VFMAILBOX_SIZE];
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    /* We currently support the RSS Random Key retrieval for 
>>>>>> 82599 and x540
>>>>>> +     * devices only.
>>>>>> +     *
>>>>>> +     * Thus return an error if API doesn't support RSS Random 
>>>>>> Key retrieval
>>>>>> +     * or if the operation is not supported for this device type.
>>>>>> +     */
>>>>>> +    if (hw->api_version != ixgbe_mbox_api_12 ||
>>>>>> +        hw->mac.type >= ixgbe_mac_X550_vf)
>>>>>> +        return -EPERM;
>>>>>> +
>>>>> The return type here should be not supported, or 
>>>>> IXGBE_NOT_IMPLEMENTED,
>>>>> not no permissions.
>>>>>
>>>>>> +    msgbuf[0] = IXGBE_VF_GET_RSS_KEY;
>>>>>> +    err = hw->mbx.ops.write_posted(hw, msgbuf, 1);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    if (err)
>>>>>> +        return err;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    err = hw->mbx.ops.read_posted(hw, msgbuf, 11);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    if (err)
>>>>>> +        return err;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    msgbuf[0] &= ~IXGBE_VT_MSGTYPE_CTS;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    /* If the operation has been refused by a PF return -EPERM */
>>>>>> +    if (msgbuf[0] == (IXGBE_VF_GET_RETA | IXGBE_VT_MSGTYPE_NACK))
>>>>>> +        return -EPERM;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    /* If we didn't get an ACK there must have been
>>>>>> +     * some sort of mailbox error so we should treat it
>>>>>> +     * as such.
>>>>>> +     */
>>>>>> +    if (msgbuf[0] != (IXGBE_VF_GET_RSS_KEY | IXGBE_VT_MSGTYPE_ACK))
>>>>>> +        return IXGBE_ERR_MBX;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    memcpy(rss_key, msgbuf + 1, IXGBEVF_RSS_HASH_KEY_SIZE);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * ixgbevf_get_rss_key - get the RSS Random Key
>>>>>> + * @hw: pointer to the HW structure
>>>>>> + * @reta: buffer to fill with RETA contents.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * The "rss_key" buffer should be big enough to contain 10 
>>>>>> registers.
>>>>>> + * Ensures the atomicy of a mailbox access using the 
>>>>>> adapter.mbx_lock spinlock.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Returns: 0 on success.
>>>>>> + *          if API doesn't support this operation - (-EPERM).
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +int ixgbevf_get_rss_key(struct ixgbevf_adapter *a, u8 *rss_key)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +    int rc;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    spin_lock_bh(&a->mbx_lock);
>>>>>> +    rc = ixgbevf_get_rss_key_locked(&a->hw, rss_key);
>>>>>> +    spin_unlock_bh(&a->mbx_lock);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    return rc;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>> Since there is currently no cases where you would be getting the 
>>>>> rss_key
>>>>> without the RETA you might just want to combine this function with
>>>>> ixgbevf_get_reta so you only take the lock once and process both
>>>>> messages in one pass instead of having to bounce the spinlock.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather not do this.
>>>> Let's start from the beginning: the locks here should be removed and
>>>> added at the caller level to match what u wrote about patch04.
>>>> Then about the uniting the two functions mentioned above - there isn't
>>>> any added value of doing this. Taking a lock only once may be done
>>>> without uniting (see PATCH07 in v10 series).
>>>> On the other hand, this uniting is going to make the code awkward and
>>>> unclear ("why are these together anyway?").
>>>> So, I'd rather keep these functions as they are apart from fixing 
>>>> the locking issue. I'll essentially export the _locked functions.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> vlad
>>>
>>> Agreed, just export the _locked functions and drop the _locked 
>>> extension.
>>
>> Hmmm... I think keeping the _locked extension would make sense since 
>> it would explicitly hint that these functions have to be called under 
>> the lock. There are other similar examples in the ixgbe/ixgbevf code 
>> already.
>
> The thing is the mailbox lock is only really needed to avoid 
> contention with the few rare cases where the mailbox is accessed 
> outside of the RTNL lock, 

Since there are such cases - every access to mailbox has to be protected.

> also there is going to end up needing to be a different version of the 
> function for x550 since it has direct register access to the 
> redirection table via registers (mailbox lock is not needed since it 
> is direct register access), so it might be worth it to take that into 
> account in the naming.

That's exactly what I'm going to do here, don't u think? ;) Since for 
82599 and x540 it should be "locked" the name of the corresponding 
function reflects it.

>
> One option you might consider would be to look at adding get_reta and 
> get_rssrk function pointers to the ixgbe_mac_operations structure and 
> then splitting up ixgbevf_mac_ops so that you have the original, and 
> an x550 version that doesn't populate those two function pointers.  
> That might make it easier to then implement the x550 version later.  
> You could probably even do something similar for the PF functionality 
> as that way you could easily identify the functions that support 
> getting the RETA and RSSRK by simply checking to see if those function 
> pointers are present.

I'll leave this to consider to the one that is going to add the x550 
support.

>
> As far as the other patches I am okay with the return being -ENOTSUPP 
> for the x550 for now.
>
> - Alex
>