From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f181.google.com (mail-wr0-f181.google.com [209.85.128.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D068CA84C for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:02:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q13so24106122wre.3 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:02:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=92H6e+0pHHcVxLRUWAytrHIxMW3GP0smbIO2ho/oYco=; b=hjQ4lxzFsZ0qZmTxNgSciONmh8ZuQsmtkjuHJRY2orSloSNNKP+8TdhOwWRaGtk0aD QEcOJE/+zZOAxL9q6MQERtuDE+LAn0tFF5M5ZH4QSs3vnDQ1D3XfwzYyQa2DeSCT2HOB qOumNLNBPI4Db9DTappvR3G5BMt1h2xj9dCv07fhLFd0rPwinY3VYrUKxUyL+YuwjUL6 OPJX4J3dMxi84C2O01TeD3aOHzIDhmW21B/mqrPgO5jrgyuxNMx63l09THdxCOw4s6HY zkrW7QNa689OFxmHNOqNBATyufbCblAjHTX0YJQU7OtQ5XQqA8e4st/NDld/6Wu32/DM HTOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=92H6e+0pHHcVxLRUWAytrHIxMW3GP0smbIO2ho/oYco=; b=V66vsS74TL2rkDpvrZ8I3vgl7R4xmlHHhAryPTO6r+6I2pMng+PcCEkGmJTE2hxO3x Z22Tj4V1yzlwEPFZGmVqUahyqzLFV6lNgQYaqOQt184B3uakdVt3A7P7ytYR+TOqj0OV NIHWl5tYHBybbvJ7aATY133AFEMXCoqX8Pi4n0KOzL65b1fzC1iO7Y/wH0ARhOZhLppn OwVBx153tqTuLo71JUheSzvKV0W7IwBfamSMxbTI0ZmBaS3WSvw6Nve6R/YArbqSG7ZV okRjWFHQzDVjOoEbZSUXleBmNEjKRuIibcfXjj/XEklTThr1nQ1mgXvd8RhimDgejF/9 kzZA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAvRRIrFlu6fHErXLWZoUQzusitrKy0WqPIu1VRYVSKRrtTXCMC lAQ8tLKf4kWs5W7yJGxBjEbrxQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx497hif6yh8sQ2cpidaOyIXY+6mhmF0TiA/vvIAOMx180lmzkdpJr4BMnqlF9Z0fSIhqLTLQMw== X-Received: by 10.28.207.201 with SMTP id f192mr10567015wmg.148.1523894579602; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z11sm11696193wre.15.2018.04.16.09.02.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:02:43 +0200 From: Adrien Mazarguil To: "Xueming(Steven) Li" Cc: =?utf-8?B?TsOpbGlv?= Laranjeiro , Shahaf Shuler , "dev@dpdk.org" , Olivier Matz Message-ID: <20180416160243.GC4957@6wind.com> References: <20180410133415.189905-1-xuemingl%40mellanox.com> <20180413112023.106420-5-xuemingl@mellanox.com> <20180413130237.kb4dkx7o6lamrjoq@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com> <20180416072857.gyfcvfqoxu3gfepf@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com> <20180416092825.GW4957@6wind.com> <20180416134737.GZ4957@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type identification X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:03:00 -0000 On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 03:27:37PM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrien Mazarguil > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 9:48 PM > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro ; Shahaf Shuler ; dev@dpdk.org; > > Olivier Matz > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type identification > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 01:32:49PM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Adrien Mazarguil > > > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 5:28 PM > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li > > > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro ; Shahaf Shuler > > > > ; dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type > > > > identification > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 08:05:13AM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 3:29 PM > > > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li > > > > > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler ; dev@dpdk.org; Olivier > > > > > > Matz ; Adrien Mazarguil > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type > > > > > > identification > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 12:57:58PM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > > > > +Adrien > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 9:03 PM > > > > > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li > > > > > > > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler ; dev@dpdk.org; > > > > > > > > Olivier Matz > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel > > > > > > > > type identification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +Olivier, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 07:20:13PM +0800, Xueming Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > This patch introduced tunnel type identification based on flow rules. > > > > > > > > > If flows of multiple tunnel types built on same queue, > > > > > > > > > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK will be returned, user application > > > > > > > > > could use bits in flow mark as tunnel type identifier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For an application it will mean the packet embed all tunnel > > > > > > > > types defined in DPDK, to make such thing you need a > > > > > > > > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN which does not exists currently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN definition, but removed > > > > > > > due to > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > So I think it good to add it in the patchset of reviewed by Adrien. > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even with it, the application still needs to parse the > > > > > > > > packet to discover which tunnel the packet embed, is there > > > > > > > > any benefit having such bit? Not so sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With a tunnel flag, checksum status represent inner checksum. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure this is generic enough, MLX5 behaves as this, but how > > > > > > behaves other NICs? It should have specific bits for inner > > > > > > checksum if all NIC don't have the same behavior. > > > > > > > > > > From my understanding, if outer checksum invalid, the packet can't > > > > > be received as a tunneled packet, but a normal packet, thus > > > > > checksum flags always result of inner for a valid tunneled packet. > > > > > > > > Yes, since checksum validation information covers all layers at once > > > > (outermost to the innermost recognized), the presence of an "unknown tunnel" > > > > bit implicitly means outer headers are OK. > > > > > > > > Now regarding the addition of RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN, the main > > > > issue I see is that it's implicit, as in getting 0 after and'ing > > > > packet types with RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK means either not present or unknown type. > > > > > > How about define RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN same ask > > > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK? And'ding packet types always return a non-zero value. > > > > I mean the value already exists, it's implicitly 0. Adding one with the same value as > > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK could be seen as a waste of a value otherwise usable for an actual tunnel type > > (there are only 4 bits). > > > > > > How about not setting any tunnel bit and let applications rely on > > > > the presence of RTE_PTYPE_INNER_* to determine that there is a > > > > tunnel of unknown type? The rationale being that a tunneled packet without an inner payload is > > kind of pointless anyway. > > > > > > An unknown type doesn't break anything, neither enum bits, straightforward IMHO. > > > > Keep in mind that mbuf packet types report what is identified. All the definitions in this file name a > > specific protocol. For instance there is no such definition as "L3 present" or "L4 present". "Tunnel > > present" doesn't make a lot of sense on its own either. > > > > Don't you agree that reporting at least one inner ptype while leaving tunnel ptype to 0 automatically > > addresses this issue? > > Currently, no inner L2 ptype, so for packet with only L2, it will be recognized as non-tunnel packet. Applications can live with it. Don't bother with a ptype API change at this point, it raises more issues than it solves. Given the size of the series, let's deal with that later through a separate task and according to user feedback. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND