From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF6DA034F; Wed, 13 May 2020 14:29:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB341D57C; Wed, 13 May 2020 14:29:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.156.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DB81D57B for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 14:29:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0045851.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04DCGNA3001463; Wed, 13 May 2020 05:29:04 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=marvell.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : content-type : in-reply-to : mime-version; s=pfpt0818; bh=2mE1X+ANeVT4uabyFYzAmutuEI7a+87IN4C+f/ebouc=; b=ptizY6BWK3DT1Z+CtCGpmPFIhEzAKgoKqDt4ipQwnCjicxEJPsXtvvh6YFe6liNGVlzg 269v/zEctJ1y0rs9CA8lx9eYHfpfE148SXUO2ggZSg/gAX67ZXC3caZ805qmId+8DlZU GLRAhuAbDp3CuinToWBCd6fKBP2uYcaKMX54gQxwffzoXP8fk+G/jVVcKUObSq78tn8C W4okYN1wirYVcuk396p7zdtHuRG6t/idzJovSOWSGg3jwIPbqMZO5rkU98VmFVSDcAjz qDQHjl3dY0unr95YQ3b/1X9/wT0CLc2uyxQRwAtdb8dle0nI3CgxKfE1DPOLx40+4UG0 /w== Received: from sc-exch01.marvell.com ([199.233.58.181]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3100xjvbpu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 May 2020 05:29:03 -0700 Received: from SC-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.93.176.81) by SC-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.93.176.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 13 May 2020 05:29:01 -0700 Received: from NAM04-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.46.51) by SC-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.93.176.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 13 May 2020 05:29:01 -0700 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=YWoLee+bn91MAvG/kJClLw8XzGM7wruHwgZwYHz9EoC4FymFBe0ixpVNxeJN6JsmghcS0DUgLpB5ttD5xrpfasFIK87X4Sq6W/7REGV/ig1CTIlraWbV+RbhfUUd7CF5NgIQ7WPe9IwHeLm+L4utybo9R+0aB2mDanel6gPrJDogQHgKIovFFgLwrulqcaQHIjNjPXUEw7kdZYKmI/i9zyxquWbhmDbyV2I+odjo0+yRCl0Ju/YKAOan8r/aS00VifPrIAIDDXbPhqIloi1ClHTCqNlKl3hi3dJ7u3tSvSn2WV0UfNzRReTgPmhIGm1ey7f46EHaOQEZJEg9TBKS5Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=2mE1X+ANeVT4uabyFYzAmutuEI7a+87IN4C+f/ebouc=; b=I8pBmzWNErMLI0tfK4vlfGC/WazoAo7zZEdCEEW/xBMN2tr7CPfxGXsAgb9Kxu+kcpoVshg3GkbNrVND8bYw4RMbYAQQbSjgwhn0ZlMEPfrnlB7QH4i4wmYeWpddDRwlwrnJR/EFYJ1qXrwvlzZB+ZrGDYOIekLq0RxMtF+hsff55LRLC9bj24ybbIJCDATMJ3SUF6eFE6K2f1xtfZ0v359UCxIgxihhw44E7cI8j6u+j0WuOTwhlNyZGbxHdXCLPu4ln4YMZkgebtQ9Vu0zYqaLm4YkUIApwmULUwKfi4sitJRl2TVogLdaNpeBBXVTmvC7kbP+XiN6vkLXS+tC9A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=marvell.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=marvell.com; dkim=pass header.d=marvell.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=marvell.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-marvell-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=2mE1X+ANeVT4uabyFYzAmutuEI7a+87IN4C+f/ebouc=; b=cGG0fFCodBPjtqFEIJznh2tUMQHWLkDkewJv5i0zqg80vVvX5rTVZUbWLL8QTmu96nsDV5WBA+QDgcNCj192fol48D7xqgqjOBqQGjfXA6YBu8sAVsyjU3RqxTdd4gymzhrXVnP8YsO9+PPtJI80wcUfFleKz1V4Q9sCNCz6cUU= Authentication-Results: 6wind.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;6wind.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=marvell.com; Received: from BYAPR18MB2917.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:105::19) by BYAPR18MB2486.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:134::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2979.34; Wed, 13 May 2020 12:28:59 +0000 Received: from BYAPR18MB2917.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a1ec:e959:77df:cd58]) by BYAPR18MB2917.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a1ec:e959:77df:cd58%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3000.016; Wed, 13 May 2020 12:28:59 +0000 Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 17:58:36 +0530 From: Nithin Dabilpuram To: Olivier Matz CC: Jerin Jacob , Nithin Dabilpuram , Thomas Monjalon , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , Ori Kam , Cristian Dumitrescu , Anatoly Burakov , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , dpdk-dev , Jerin Jacob , Krzysztof Kanas Message-ID: <20200513122836.GB19210@outlook.office365.com> References: <20200417072254.11455-1-nithind1988@gmail.com> <20200504080634.GB6327@platinum> <20200504082706.GA6153@outlook.office365.com> <20200504091640.GC6327@platinum> <20200504100457.GB6153@outlook.office365.com> <20200504122735.GD6327@platinum> <20200505061920.GA1705@outlook.office365.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200505061920.GA1705@outlook.office365.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (34cd43c) (2019-09-21) X-ClientProxiedBy: PN1PR0101CA0047.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:1096:c00:c::33) To BYAPR18MB2917.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:105::19) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from outlook.office365.com (115.113.156.2) by PN1PR0101CA0047.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:1096:c00:c::33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2979.27 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 13 May 2020 12:28:54 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [115.113.156.2] X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: f528e82e-39d3-46f3-2a94-08d7f73935aa X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: BYAPR18MB2486: X-MS-Exchange-Transport-Forked: True X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:2399; X-Forefront-PRVS: 0402872DA1 X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BYAPR18MB2917.namprd18.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(33430700001)(8936002)(55236004)(956004)(2906002)(4326008)(54906003)(7416002)(6666004)(7696005)(55016002)(26005)(9686003)(52116002)(966005)(107886003)(8676002)(16526019)(6916009)(66556008)(66476007)(5660300002)(53546011)(316002)(6506007)(33440700001)(478600001)(66946007)(186003)(1076003)(33656002)(30864003)(86362001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: Aj/HQOeWKAgHHzyDQkXMBN627W+xZJ5jZdO0iB2uYyohgf5KLPUsij2O8SVK+xcWLpARtrJ/ktpgWKFaRIXyZmsSxLrCnzeqtHl2LAEjmAk3dO52fUiSGvMvDAcE/+JcR9SXXzd7uyAcRead7cHY5x1Xo/GWA9/RA8SmbgMeUi8SSvkbPq6eL4Pf+7Kk5REZBOsz1P7kbHnnspKdMmc5TmZK5zycqhNyjMNGQwpGFOU7wf51PlhQw19Vi7E6Ai2zGg4JTfxcdJb8TPr1tWT9BG+zPnCRr/WY47z70vMNkO2JF0rSVspxTuXGJXqzW7r38dUXFUoPhdhKyShKs+9gmFq9FnO3ESrt23kaAJW035MyeU2qHzBabfuqheXuRcyvi7Ts+QTsSiF/4WkEHvR77HtxEnYiHFNsElDKmWsJ70aOa0IGDJX5yGFUB4k91WAauil+F+UV/RJ4GFkUY8en6zo/l1fmNVFmRkeFAntuGYM= X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f528e82e-39d3-46f3-2a94-08d7f73935aa X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 May 2020 12:28:58.7692 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 70e1fb47-1155-421d-87fc-2e58f638b6e0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: nAt1xn9Fo0MExT5X37HJziUZ5xaxnwe8fo2Pak8j358avUAi4p3e+iKbb6tEZMXpuH7r0uXXoMF5ydgRQfr6fg== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR18MB2486 X-OriginatorOrg: marvell.com X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-13_04:2020-05-13, 2020-05-13 signatures=0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/3] mbuf: add Tx offloads for packet marking 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Olivier, Any thoughts on this ? On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:49:20AM +0530, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 02:27:35PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 03:34:57PM +0530, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote: > > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:16:40AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 01:57:06PM +0530, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote: > > > > > Hi Olivier, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 10:06:34AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > > > > External Email > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 04:48:21PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:53 PM Nithin Dabilpuram > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Nithin Dabilpuram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Introduce PKT_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP, PKT_TX_MARK_IP_ECN > > > > > > > > and PKT_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI Tx offload flags to support > > > > > > > > packet marking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When packet marking feature in Traffic manager is enabled, > > > > > > > > application has to the use the three new flags to indicate > > > > > > > > to PMD on whether packet marking needs to be enabled on the > > > > > > > > specific mbuf or not. By setting the three flags, it is > > > > > > > > assumed by PMD that application has already verified the > > > > > > > > applicability of marking on that specific packet and > > > > > > > > PMD need not perform further checks as per RFC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kanas > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nithin Dabilpuram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of the ethdev TM driver implementations has supported packet > > > > > > > marking support. > > > > > > > rte_tm and rte_mbuf maintainers(Christian, Oliver), Could you review this patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know, the number of mbuf flags is limited (only 18 bits are > > > > > > remaining), so I think we should use them with care, i.e. for features > > > > > > that are generic enough. > > > > > > > > > > I agree, but I believe this is one of the basic flags needed like other > > > > > Tx checksum offload flags (like PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_IPV4, etc) which > > > > > are needed to identify on which packets HW should/can apply packet marking. > > > > > > > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM tells the hardware to offload the checksum > > > > calculation. This is pretty straightforward and there is no other > > > > dependency than the offload feature advertised by the PMD. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I have not a lot of experience with rte_tm.h, so it's > > > > difficult for me to have a global view of what is done for instance when > > > > PKT_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI is set, and what happens when it is not set. > > > > > > > > Can you confirm that my understanding below is correct? (or correct me > > > > where I'm wrong) > > > > > > > > Before your patch: > > > > - the application enables the port and traffic manager on it > > > > - the application calls rte_tm_mark_vlan_dei() to select which traffic > > > > class must be marked > > > > - when a packet is transmitted, the traffic class is determined by the > > > > hardware, and if the hardware recognizes a VLAN packet, the VLAN DEI > > > > bit is set depending on traffic class > > > > > > > > The problem is for packets that cannot be recognized by the hardware, > > > > correct? > > > > > > Yes. Octeontx2 HW always depends on application knowledge instead of walking > > > through all the layers of packet data in Tx to identify what packet it is > > > and where the l2, l3, l4 headers start for performance reasons. > > > > > > I believe there are other hardware too that have the same expectation > > > and hence we have a need for PKT_TX_IPv4, PKT_TX_IPv6 kind of flags. > > > > > > Hence we want to make use of mbuf:tx_offload field and PKT_TX_* flags > > > for identifying the packet and knowing what are its l2,l3,l4 offsets. > > > > The objective is to give an indication to the hardware that the packet has: > > - an 802.1q header at offset X for PKT_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI > > - an IP/IPv6 header at offset X for PKT_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP > > - an IP/IPv6 header at offset X and a TCP/SCTP header at offset Y for > > PKT_TX_MARK_IP_ECN > > > > Just to be sure I'm getting the point, would it also work if with flags > > like this: > > > > - an 802.1q header at offset X for PKT_TX_HAS_VLAN > > - an IP/IPv6 header at offset X for PKT_TX_IPv4 or PKT_TX_IPv6 > > - a TCP/SCTP header at offset Y for PKT_TX_TCP/PKT_TX_SCTP (implies > > PKT_TX_IPv4 or PKT_TX_IPv6) > > > > The underlying question is: do we need the flags to only describe the > > content of the packet or do the flag also indicate that an action has to > > be done? > > If we don't have a specific action based flag, then in future it might collide > with other functionality and we will not be able to choose that specific > offload. All the existing features are having specific flags, like TSO, > CSUM. > > RFC wise, even when marking in enabled and packet is coloured, not all packets > can be marked. > For example when IP DSCP marking(RFC 2597) is enabled, marking is defined > only with below 12 code points out of 64 code points (6 bits of DSCP). > > Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 > +----------+----------+----------+----------+ > Low Drop Prec | 001010 | 010010 | 011010 | 100010 | > Medium Drop Prec | 001100 | 010100 | 011100 | 100100 | > High Drop Prec | 001110 | 010110 | 011110 | 100110 | > +----------+----------+----------+----------+ > > All other combinations of DSCP value can be used for some other purposes > and hence packets with those values shouldn't be marked. > Similar is the case with IP ECN marking for TCP/SCTP(RFC 3168). > > Having PMD or HW to check if the packet falls in the said class and then do > marking will impact performance. Since application actually fills those values > in packet, it will be more easy for them to say. > > > > > > > So your patch is a way to force the hardware to recognize mark set the > > > > VLAN DEI on packets that are not recognized as VLAN packets? > > > > > > > > How the is traffic class of the packet determined? > > > > > > Packet is coloured based on Single Rate[1] or Dual Rate[2] Shaping result > > > and packet color determines traffic class. The exact behavior of > > > packet color to traffic class mapping is mentioned in TM spec based on > > > few other RFC's. > > > > > > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc2697&d=DwIBAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=FZ_tPCbgFOh18zwRPO9H0yDx8VW38vuapifdDfc8SFQ&m=pJDciSXpMy6TawycjvpYj_Jq5M5j_ywqhU8-keRI_ac&s=05emGNkz3Qat3dtZIbEsmQDC5y9-tU9yItHX0x1aaJU&e= > > > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc2698&d=DwIBAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=FZ_tPCbgFOh18zwRPO9H0yDx8VW38vuapifdDfc8SFQ&m=pJDciSXpMy6TawycjvpYj_Jq5M5j_ywqhU8-keRI_ac&s=3VN2dIGSDt4vWM-FpPOOf-8SeVShl_t7QpXRU6Zw460&e= > > > > OK, so the traffic class does not depend on the packet type? > Yes it doesn't. But where to update the traffic class is specific to packet > type like DEI bit in VLAN or ECN field in IPv4/IPv6 or DSCP field in IPv4/IPv6. > Also ECN marking is only valid for TCP/SCTP packets. > > > > > > > > > > > From what I understand, this feature is bound to octeontx2, so using a > > > > > > mbuf dynamic flag would make more sense here. There are some examples in > > > > > > dpdk repository, just grep for "dynflag". > > > > > > > > > > This is not octeontx2 specific flag but any "packet marking feature" enabled > > > > > PMD would need these flags to identify on which packets marking needs to be > > > > > done. This is the first PMD that supports packet marking feature and > > > > > hence it was not exposed earlier. > > > > > > > > > > For example to mark VLAN DEI, PMD cannot always assume that there is preexisting > > > > > VLAN header from Byte 12 as there is no gaurantee that ethernet header > > > > > always starts at Byte 0 (Custom headers before ethernet hdr). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I think that the feature availability should be advertised through > > > > > > an ethdev offload, so an application can know at initialization time > > > > > > that these flags can be used. > > > > > > > > > > Feature availablity is already part of TM spec in rte_tm.h > > > > > struct rte_tm_capabilities:mark_vlan_dei_supported > > > > > struct rte_tm_capabilities:mark_ip_ecn_[sctp|tcp]_supported > > > > > struct rte_tm_capabilities:mark_ip_dscp_supported > > > > > > > > Does this mean that any driver advertising this existing feature flag > > > > has to support the new mbuf flags too? Shouldn't we have a specific > > > > feature for it? > > > > > > Yes, I thought PMD's need to support both. > > > I'm fine adding specific feature flag for the offload flags alone > > > if you insist or if there are other PMD's which don't need the offload flags > > > for packet marking. I was not able to find out about other PMD's as > > > none of the existing PMD's support packet marking. > > > > Do you suggest that the behavior of the traffic manager marking should > > be: > > > > a- the hardware tries to recognize tx packets, and mark them > > accordingly. What packets are recognized depend on hardware. > > b- if the mbuf has a specific flag, it helps the PMD and hardware to > > recognize packets, so it can mark packets. > > > > For an application, a- is difficult to apprehend as it will be dependent > > on hardware. > > > > Or do you suggest that packets should only be marked if there is a mbuf > > flag? (only b-) > Yes, I believe b- is the right thing. > > > > > Do you confirm that there is no support at all for this feature today? > > I mean, what was the usage of rte_tm_mark_vlan_dei() these last 3 years? > > Yes, it was not implemented/used. Because of such reasons, rte_tm.h is > supposed to be experimental but was mistakenly marked stable. > You can see related discussion in below threads about marking rte_tm.h > experimental again in v20.11. > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mails.dpdk.org_archives_dev_2020-2DApril_164970.html&d=DwIBAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=FZ_tPCbgFOh18zwRPO9H0yDx8VW38vuapifdDfc8SFQ&m=JWDwlSkCAEkWR-4kKuuIGFmhMtr8W10Ns9kEPidDFbQ&s=XESl2bNVKTkGiVmm3qww3zDb0vYu9_XcaqT2CkCViTs&e= > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mails.dpdk.org_archives_dev_2020-2DMay_166221.html&d=DwIBAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=FZ_tPCbgFOh18zwRPO9H0yDx8VW38vuapifdDfc8SFQ&m=JWDwlSkCAEkWR-4kKuuIGFmhMtr8W10Ns9kEPidDFbQ&s=ZGxLxUL_76HZo9YmWhyvDZeYg28uEh3q6od48a3KlbI&e= > > Thanks > Nithin > > > > > Thanks, > > Olivier > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please also see few comments below. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > doc/guides/nics/features.rst | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c | 6 ++++++ > > > > > > > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst b/doc/guides/nics/features.rst > > > > > > > > index edd21c4..bc978fb 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst > > > > > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features.rst > > > > > > > > @@ -913,6 +913,20 @@ Supports to get Rx/Tx packet burst mode information. > > > > > > > > * **[implements] eth_dev_ops**: ``rx_burst_mode_get``, ``tx_burst_mode_get``. > > > > > > > > * **[related] API**: ``rte_eth_rx_burst_mode_get()``, ``rte_eth_tx_burst_mode_get()``. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +.. _nic_features_traffic_manager_packet_marking_offload: > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +Traffic Manager Packet marking offload > > > > > > > > +-------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +Supports enabling a packet marking offload specific mbuf. > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +* **[uses] mbuf**: ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP``, > > > > > > > > + ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_TX_MARK_IP_ECN``, ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI``, > > > > > > > > + ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_TX_IPV4``, ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_TX_IPV6``. > > > > > > > > +* **[uses] mbuf**: ``mbuf.l2_len``. > > > > > > > > +* **[related] API**: ``rte_tm_mark_ip_dscp()``, ``rte_tm_mark_ip_ecn()``, > > > > > > > > + ``rte_tm_mark_vlan_dei()``. > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > .. _nic_features_other: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other dev ops not represented by a Feature > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c > > > > > > > > index cd5794d..5c6896d 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c > > > > > > > > @@ -880,6 +880,9 @@ const char *rte_get_tx_ol_flag_name(uint64_t mask) > > > > > > > > case PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD: return "PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD"; > > > > > > > > case PKT_TX_UDP_SEG: return "PKT_TX_UDP_SEG"; > > > > > > > > case PKT_TX_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM: return "PKT_TX_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM"; > > > > > > > > + case PKT_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI: return "PKT_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI"; > > > > > > > > + case PKT_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP: return "PKT_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP"; > > > > > > > > + case PKT_TX_MARK_IP_ECN: return "PKT_TX_MARK_IP_ECN"; > > > > > > > > default: return NULL; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > @@ -916,6 +919,9 @@ rte_get_tx_ol_flag_list(uint64_t mask, char *buf, size_t buflen) > > > > > > > > { PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD, PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD, NULL }, > > > > > > > > { PKT_TX_UDP_SEG, PKT_TX_UDP_SEG, NULL }, > > > > > > > > { PKT_TX_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM, NULL }, > > > > > > > > + { PKT_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI, PKT_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI, NULL }, > > > > > > > > + { PKT_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP, PKT_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP, NULL }, > > > > > > > > + { PKT_TX_MARK_IP_ECN, PKT_TX_MARK_IP_ECN, NULL }, > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > const char *name; > > > > > > > > unsigned int i; > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h > > > > > > > > index b9a59c8..d9f1290 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h > > > > > > > > @@ -187,11 +187,40 @@ extern "C" { > > > > > > > > /* add new RX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_FIRST_FREE */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define PKT_FIRST_FREE (1ULL << 23) > > > > > > > > -#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 40) > > > > > > > > +#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 37) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* add new TX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_LAST_FREE */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > > + * Packet marking offload flags. These flags indicated what kind > > > > > > > > + * of packet marking needs to be applied on a given mbuf when > > > > > > > > + * appropriate Traffic Manager configuration is in place. > > > > > > > > + * When user set's these flags on a mbuf, below assumptions are made > > > > > > > > + * 1) When PKT_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI is set, > > > > > > > > + * a) PMD assumes pkt to be a 802.1q packet. > > > > > > > > What does that imply? > > > > > > I meant by setting the flag, a packet has VLAN header adhering to IEEE 802.1Q spec. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * b) Application should also set mbuf.l2_len where 802.1Q header is > > > > > > > > + * at (mbuf.l2_len - 6) offset. > > > > > > > > Why mbuf.l2_len - 6 ? > > > L2 header when VLAN header is preset will be > > > {custom header 'X' Bytes}:{Ethernet SRC+DST (12B)}:{VLAN Header (4B)}:{Ether Type (2B)} > > > l2_len = X + 12 + 4 + 2 > > > So, VLAN header starts at (l2_len - 6) bytes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * 2) When PKT_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP is set, > > > > > > > > + * a) Application should also set either PKT_TX_IPV4 or PKT_TX_IPV6 > > > > > > > > + * to indicate whether if it is IPv4 packet or IPv6 packet > > > > > > > > + * for DSCP marking. It should also set PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM if it is > > > > > > > > + * IPv4 pkt. > > > > > > > > + * b) Application should also set mbuf.l2_len that indicates > > > > > > > > + * start offset of L3 header. > > > > > > > > + * 3) When PKT_TX_MARK_IP_ECN is set, > > > > > > > > + * a) Application should also set either PKT_TX_IPV4 or PKT_TX_IPV6. > > > > > > > > + * It should also set PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM if it is IPv4 pkt. > > > > > > > > + * b) PMD will assume pkt L4 protocol is either TCP or SCTP and > > > > > > > > + * ECN is set to 2'b01 or 2'b10 as per RFC 3168 and hence HW > > > > > > > > + * can mark the packet for a configured color. > > > > > > > > + * c) Application should also set mbuf.l2_len that indicates > > > > > > > > + * start offset of L3 header. > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > +#define PKT_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI (1ULL << 38) > > > > > > > > +#define PKT_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP (1ULL << 39) > > > > > > > > +#define PKT_TX_MARK_IP_ECN (1ULL << 40) > > > > > > > > We should have one comment per define. > > > Ack, will fix in V2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > > > * Outer UDP checksum offload flag. This flag is used for enabling > > > > > > > > * outer UDP checksum in PMD. To use outer UDP checksum, the user needs to > > > > > > > > * 1) Enable the following in mbuf, > > > > > > > > @@ -384,7 +413,10 @@ extern "C" { > > > > > > > > PKT_TX_MACSEC | \ > > > > > > > > PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD | \ > > > > > > > > PKT_TX_UDP_SEG | \ > > > > > > > > - PKT_TX_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM) > > > > > > > > + PKT_TX_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM | \ > > > > > > > > + PKT_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI | \ > > > > > > > > + PKT_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP | \ > > > > > > > > + PKT_TX_MARK_IP_ECN) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > > * Mbuf having an external buffer attached. shinfo in mbuf must be filled. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 2.8.4 > > > > > > > >