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 2F126A0524; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:00:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8751BFE2; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:00:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com (mail-wr1-f65.google.com [209.85.221.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4BB1BFC9 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:00:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id a14so13868744wra.5 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 01:00:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zP10s3ClmwdsHMBOUy0viVaxXiSxGvviTt/x2vU0o9M=; b=CWyheZDbiifblCmJEEyMGNrboYu90dAutURQAoM9kxn/36tFZQ3s7vrSiXmsK+9ovw VNxVUuOG++UNO5OMR/8C7pB9Dx5jPEhj/gOTRwj8HGzKUU86G+HvNPuYVwdcaURRMp+2 FxVj2KVtLKMzudp62lrc0ZXipGRGA8EmNRnv8QNtd2zoq+YM2rzAms/ghfU3T7yKApRr 1kN2dQQiPycXGf7VgX03lXKWY5xQHhaeXjkVgqqA0e1hQejQFyBZdYemOXF/T72br/nQ aLLxl+6nFU3DZqKC9NdWcUhQahhIdsrJVHEnjAByhH01dV2zJhmnBIfvl9CzvTMHa1+u YV8w== 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:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zP10s3ClmwdsHMBOUy0viVaxXiSxGvviTt/x2vU0o9M=; b=jgPnNjhrnznEkHbID41blyu409rLobvewAOHu4neYQGcsU6BWLX9jiTjKXDGHwkqKG rGNrM3yAq29CvQblrAD8iAdXwpw1/9WfCyzbKHP7Yr7UBr/hEEghSYUVXdNtE+pmFNaJ BSFBFArjWS4WzLoSWlX6YGOmuHXLGaSm671plKiQ5BVa993cfJXLWNnmpSdRhA1u3HEj H2Yl4R+yYapT9Ks+5q8IBTxswI9x8hf2qImDNfuvbNJ0uKk4DKOfw7l7RIJ95fYEV0CS w3LFSF5/hK86pjeqnKim+KjL7nz5ReW3AUalrfZlkxQ1LWAWlV0AN6p6k3ZTfPMf4Io2 f/wQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531pMKluJtDoUz5d0bYImblzAL4ipxIn0LdP64mMIPXnQqAj29wh tn5x2EI7IIoOBUjiVUcjLCCVCA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx7HGp6whCVFCJjllwIZcLSPLq/NBvDjlqNn0HdN6pqunSBL+rvvEYVR+2Z7HljiOEx9kdjKQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:dd4f:: with SMTP id u15mr19371444wrm.275.1595836803044; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 01:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com (2a01cb0c0005a600345636f7e65ed1a0.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb0c:5:a600:3456:36f7:e65e:d1a0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l81sm13714839wmf.4.2020.07.27.01.00.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 01:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:00:01 +0200 From: Olivier Matz To: Matan Azrad Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Andrew Rybchenko , Maxime Coquelin , "dev@dpdk.org" , Ferruh Yigit , Konstantin Ananyev Message-ID: <20200727080001.GQ5869@platinum> References: <1565103383-23864-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <229e9a7b-2603-698c-d687-f7755f40bf58@solarflare.com> <4359580.12Q4qOoiY3@xps> <3071401.IZAg4H9azB@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] doc: announce new mbuf field for LRO 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, On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 06:49:01AM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > Hi > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 10/08/2019 23:31, Thomas Monjalon: > > > 06/08/2019 20:17, Andrew Rybchenko: > > > > On 8/6/19 5:56 PM, Matan Azrad wrote: > > > > > The API breakage is because the ``tso_segsz`` field was documented > > > > > for LRO. > > > > > > > > > > The ``tso_segsz`` field in mbuf indicates the size of each segment > > > > > in the LRO packet in Rx path and should be provided by the LRO > > > > > packet port. > > > > > > > > > > While the generic LRO packet may aggregate different segments > > > > > sizes in one packet, it is impossible to expose this information > > > > > for each segment by one field and it doesn't make sense to expose > > > > > all the segments sizes in the mbuf. > > > > > > > > > > A new field may be added as union with the above field to expose > > > > > the number of segments aggregated in the LRO packet. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad > > > > > --- > > > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > > +* mbuf: Remove ``tso_segsz`` mbuf field providing for LRO > > > > > +support. Use union > > > > > + block for the field memory to be shared with a new field > > > > > +``lro_segs_n`` > > > > > + indicates the number of segments aggregated in the LRO packet. > > > > > > > > I think that the number of segments is more logical in the case of LRO. > > > > The question (already asked by Konstantin) is why it is needed at > > > > all (statistics?). If so, it still makes sense. > > > > > > > > Segment size is misleading here, since not all segments could be the > > > > same size. So, > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko > > > > > > > > As far as I can see bnxt and qede do not fill it in. > > > > mlx5 and vmxnet3 have the number of segments (vmxnet3 has segment > > > > size sometimes and sometimes use a function to guess the value). > > > > So both will win from the change. > > > > It looks like virtio does not have number of segments. CC Maxime to > > > > comment. > > > > > > I support improving the API for LRO. > > > Unfortunately, the consensus is not strong enough at the moment. > > > > We had no progress about LRO field in mbuf. > > Is it a change we would like to have in 20.11? > > > +1 to make the change. Thinking about this, having the segment size for LRO is useful: it is expected to give the size of the segments, except the last one. The advantage of this is to be able to resegment exactly at the same MSS on Tx (so it does not break PMTU). This is needed if you want to do a bridge or a router with LRO enabled. What is described above is more GRO than LRO. But today, it is possible to do this with the virtio driver, so removing the segment size would break this use case. Regards, Olivier