On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 at 10:36, Vyavahare, Tushar <tushar.vyavahare@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fijalkowski, Maciej <maciej.fijalkowski@xxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:11 PM > > To: Vyavahare, Tushar <tushar.vyavahare@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx; > > Karlsson, Magnus <magnus.karlsson@xxxxxxxxx>; > > jonathan.lemon@xxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; > > pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; ast@xxxxxxxxxx; daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sarkar, > > Tirthendu <tirthendu.sarkar@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/xsk: Enhance batch size support > > with dynamic configurations > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:20:48PM +0000, Tushar Vyavahare wrote: > > > Introduce dynamic adjustment capabilities for fill_size, comp_size, > > > tx_size, and rx_size parameters to support larger batch sizes beyond > > > the > > > > you are only introducing fill_size and comp_size to xsk_umem_info. The latter > > two seem to be in place. > > > > I will do it. > > > > previous 2K limit. > > > > > > Update HW_SW_MAX_RING_SIZE test cases to evaluate AF_XDP's > > robustness > > > by pushing hardware and software ring sizes to their limits. This test > > > ensures AF_XDP's reliability amidst potential producer/consumer > > > throttling due to maximum ring utilization. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tushar Vyavahare <tushar.vyavahare@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c | 26 > > > ++++++++++++++++++------ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h | > > > 2 ++ > > > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c > > > index 088df53869e8..5b049f0296e6 100644 > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c > > > @@ -196,6 +196,12 @@ static int xsk_configure_umem(struct ifobject > > *ifobj, struct xsk_umem_info *umem > > > }; > > > int ret; > > > > > > + if (umem->fill_size) > > > + cfg.fill_size = umem->fill_size; > > > + > > > + if (umem->comp_size) > > > + cfg.comp_size = umem->comp_size; > > > + > > > if (umem->unaligned_mode) > > > cfg.flags |= XDP_UMEM_UNALIGNED_CHUNK_FLAG; > > > > > > @@ -265,6 +271,10 @@ static int __xsk_configure_socket(struct > > xsk_socket_info *xsk, struct xsk_umem_i > > > cfg.bind_flags |= XDP_SHARED_UMEM; > > > if (ifobject->mtu > MAX_ETH_PKT_SIZE) > > > cfg.bind_flags |= XDP_USE_SG; > > > + if (umem->fill_size) > > > + cfg.tx_size = umem->fill_size; > > > + if (umem->comp_size) > > > + cfg.rx_size = umem->comp_size; > > > > how is the fq related to txq ? and cq to rxq? shouldn't this be fq-rxq and cq- > > txq. What is the intent here? In the end they are the same in your test. > > > > Yes, you are correct, updating code accordingly. > > > > > > > txr = ifobject->tx_on ? &xsk->tx : NULL; > > > rxr = ifobject->rx_on ? &xsk->rx : NULL; @@ -1616,7 +1626,7 @@ > > > static void xsk_populate_fill_ring(struct xsk_umem_info *umem, struct > > pkt_stream > > > if (umem->num_frames < XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS) > > > buffers_to_fill = umem->num_frames; > > > else > > > - buffers_to_fill = XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS; > > > + buffers_to_fill = umem->fill_size; > > > > > > ret = xsk_ring_prod__reserve(&umem->fq, buffers_to_fill, &idx); > > > if (ret != buffers_to_fill) > > > @@ -2445,7 +2455,7 @@ static int testapp_hw_sw_min_ring_size(struct > > > test_spec *test) > > > > > > static int testapp_hw_sw_max_ring_size(struct test_spec *test) { > > > - u32 max_descs = XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS * 2; > > > + u32 max_descs = XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS * 4; > > > int ret; > > > > > > test->set_ring = true; > > > @@ -2453,7 +2463,8 @@ static int testapp_hw_sw_max_ring_size(struct > > test_spec *test) > > > test->ifobj_tx->ring.tx_pending = test->ifobj_tx- > > >ring.tx_max_pending; > > > test->ifobj_tx->ring.rx_pending = test->ifobj_tx- > > >ring.rx_max_pending; > > > test->ifobj_rx->umem->num_frames = max_descs; > > > - test->ifobj_rx->xsk->rxqsize = max_descs; > > > > rxqsize is only used for setting xsk_socket_config::rx_size ? > > > > Initially, we used the rxqsize field from the xsk_socket object, directly > assigning max_descs to it and then using this value to set cfg.rx_size. > However, we are now shifted to a different approach for test, where we are > setting cfg.rx_size based on the comp_size from the umem object, provided > that umem->fill_size is true. > > > > + test->ifobj_rx->umem->fill_size = max_descs; > > > + test->ifobj_rx->umem->comp_size = max_descs; > > > test->ifobj_tx->xsk->batch_size = > > XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS; > > > test->ifobj_rx->xsk->batch_size = > > XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS; > > > > > > @@ -2461,9 +2472,12 @@ static int testapp_hw_sw_max_ring_size(struct > > test_spec *test) > > > if (ret) > > > return ret; > > > > > > - /* Set batch_size to 4095 */ > > > - test->ifobj_tx->xsk->batch_size = max_descs - 1; > > > - test->ifobj_rx->xsk->batch_size = max_descs - 1; > > > + /* Set batch_size to 8152 for testing, as the ice HW ignores the 3 > > lowest bits when updating > > > + * the Rx HW tail register. > > > > i would wrap the comment to 80 chars but that's personal taste. > > > > I will do it. You can keep it at 100 chars since that is used in most of the file. That is allowed these days unless I mistake myself. Though the file started out at 80 chars. > > > + */ > > > + test->ifobj_tx->xsk->batch_size = test->ifobj_tx->ring.tx_max_pending > > - 8; > > > + test->ifobj_rx->xsk->batch_size = test->ifobj_tx->ring.tx_max_pending > > - 8; > > > + pkt_stream_replace(test, max_descs, MIN_PKT_SIZE); > > > return testapp_validate_traffic(test); } > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h > > > index 906de5fab7a3..885c948c5d83 100644 > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h > > > @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ struct xsk_umem_info { > > > void *buffer; > > > u32 frame_size; > > > u32 base_addr; > > > + u32 fill_size; > > > + u32 comp_size; > > > bool unaligned_mode; > > > }; > > > > > > -- > > > 2.34.1 > > > >