From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Keith Wiles <keith.wiles@intel.com>,
Hongzhi Guo <guohongzhi1@huawei.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] net: introduce functions to verify L4 checksums
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:21:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210428122153.GU1726@platinum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61718@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
Hi Morten,
Thank you for the review.
<...>
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 05:07:04PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > +static inline uint16_t
> > +rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr, const void
> > *l4_hdr)
> > +{
> > + uint16_t cksum = __rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(ipv4_hdr, l4_hdr);
> > +
> > + cksum = ~cksum;
> > +
> > /*
> > - * Per RFC 768:If the computed checksum is zero for UDP,
> > + * Per RFC 768: If the computed checksum is zero for UDP,
> > * it is transmitted as all ones
> > * (the equivalent in one's complement arithmetic).
> > */
> > if (cksum == 0 && ipv4_hdr->next_proto_id == IPPROTO_UDP)
> > cksum = 0xffff;
> >
> > - return (uint16_t)cksum;
> > + return cksum;
> > +}
>
> The GCC static branch predictor treats the above comparison as likely. Playing around with Godbolt, I came up with this alternative:
>
> if (likely(cksum != 0)) return cksum;
> if (ipv4_hdr->next_proto_id == IPPROTO_UDP) return 0xffff;
> return 0;
Good idea, this is indeed an unlikely branch.
However this code was already present before this patch,
so I suggest to add it as a specific optimization patch.
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * Validate the IPv4 UDP or TCP checksum.
> > + *
> > + * @param ipv4_hdr
> > + * The pointer to the contiguous IPv4 header.
> > + * @param l4_hdr
> > + * The pointer to the beginning of the L4 header.
> > + * @return
> > + * Return 0 if the checksum is correct, else -1.
> > + */
> > +__rte_experimental
> > +static inline int
> > +rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr,
> > + const void *l4_hdr)
> > +{
> > + uint16_t cksum = __rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(ipv4_hdr, l4_hdr);
> > +
> > + if (cksum != 0xffff)
> > + return -1;
>
> The GCC static branch predictor treats the above comparison as likely, so I would prefer unlikely() around it.
For this one, I'm less convinced: should we decide here whether
the good or the bad checksum is more likely than the other?
Given it's a static inline function, wouldn't it be better to let
the application call it this way:
if (likely(rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify(...) == 0)) ?
Regards,
Olivier
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-28 12:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-27 13:57 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum Olivier Matz
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on IP options packets Olivier Matz
2021-04-30 14:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-06-08 10:13 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-08 12:29 ` Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 12:34 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-08 12:49 ` Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 13:57 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-08 14:30 ` Olivier Matz
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on TCP packets Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 10:18 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] net: introduce functions to verify L4 checksums Olivier Matz
2021-04-27 15:02 ` Morten Brørup
2021-04-27 15:07 ` Morten Brørup
2021-04-28 12:21 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2021-04-28 12:42 ` Morten Brørup
2021-04-30 15:42 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-06-08 10:23 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-08 12:29 ` Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 12:39 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-25 15:38 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] test/cksum: new test for L3/L4 checksum API Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on IP options packets Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on TCP packets Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net: introduce functions to verify L4 checksums Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] test/cksum: new test for L3/L4 checksum API Olivier Matz
2021-07-01 9:28 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum Andrew Rybchenko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210428122153.GU1726@platinum \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=guohongzhi1@huawei.com \
--cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).