From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B018DA6 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:19:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2015 00:19:25 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,274,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="848294028" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2015 00:19:24 -0800 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:23:18 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Jijiang Liu Message-ID: <20151111082318.GY2326@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1447224046-1169-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <1447224046-1169-9-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1447224046-1169-9-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 8/8] virtio/lib:add guest offload handle X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:19:27 -0000 Regarding to your patch title, there are two minor pits: - the prefix should be "vhost" but not "virtio/lib". - you should add an extra space after ":" On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:40:46PM +0800, Jijiang Liu wrote: > Enqueue guest offload(CSUM and TSO) handle. (ALL) Your patch lacks some explanation. And I don't think it's about guest offload handling, it's about setting the right offload fields for RX side, such as VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_NEEDS_CSUM. And you need spend few words to state why that is required. Something like following might help others to review: For packet going through from one VM to another VM without passing the NIC, and the VM claiming that it supports checksum offload, no one will actually calculate the checksum, hence, the packet will be dropped at TCP layer, due to checksum validation is failed. However, for VM2VM case, there is no need to do checksum, for we think the data should be reliable enough, and setting VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_NEEDS_CSUM at RX side will let the TCP layer to bypass the checksum validation, so that the RX side could receive the packet in the end. At RX side, the offload information is inherited from mbuf, which is in turn inherited from TX side. If we can still get those info at RX side, it means the packet is from another VM at same host. So, it's safe to set the VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_NEEDS_CSUM, to skip checksum validation. > Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu > --- > lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c > index 9e70990..468fed8 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c > +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c > @@ -54,6 +54,42 @@ is_valid_virt_queue_idx(uint32_t idx, int is_tx, uint32_t qp_nb) > return (is_tx ^ (idx & 1)) == 0 && idx < qp_nb * VIRTIO_QNUM; > } > > +static void > +virtio_enqueue_offload(struct rte_mbuf *m_buf, struct virtio_net_hdr *net_hdr) > +{ As virtio_hdr is set per mbuf, you'd better reset net_hdr first before setting it. Otherwise, if this mbuf has no offload related stuff, you may still get a net_hdr with offload related fields set, due to last mbuf has that. I know the chance is rare, but it's for code logic. --yliu