From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE131B0F7 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:03:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C5622109; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:03:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 08 Oct 2018 09:03:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=X8HTz9ezQLFJc7+QMvQLlvCaAQwwjttWGBukDsK4iO8=; b=NXX8dA4Bw7qN VKLiYzsW+zur05mP6wRLI9doCmjpffry91biQmy82YnKbfBlqzh9X1Nm35ggY6Da yoHMYg7tsmNjFbp5SknwrFNo4mjLcmzDePiLmo9HLR00w9Ml42kUCHXr4PwWJ9LD vsCIxAaNW4KLuLmHhJ0L7A2sbWbxnsU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=X8HTz9ezQLFJc7+QMvQLlvCaAQwwjttWGBukDsK4i O8=; b=BQYjY12ZbuBQc9dpxfEx6Ia0lDZxf+yF6KlTn8Lhmxfr7baycCqBFm1jr YqD5Hq4mf0D0wpGERvtpsS4nI8FYCcKIPROqabC/0ShYq5d8QeZxKoRKoRikRg/U 0jxRqQxghhOPVgnnZRCh471H67Nsf44KaNL6Ias8Vrb7a2vCh0JpTZQx5NWMqunw FhRCy+hVxoedLryCVR9snMRuddBnltidP1ZQt92rwYJcekIhIx43llWDFoWWrJ/2 3GmSa5jT2O/p6BwiM04wuoYmRSkbHLcczrjSKhapEZLsIRNCkvjW8OzK2oyequ0f 982/VXRwEqVuoir3+G5a9qNSYDaTQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A1775102DE; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:03:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jerin Jacob Cc: Ferruh Yigit , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Andrew Rybchenko , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Wu, Jingjing" , "Iremonger, Bernard" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Kovacevic, Marko" , Olivier Matz , "dev@dpdk.org" , "shahafs@mellanox.com" , "didier.pallard@6wind.com" Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 15:03:49 +0200 Message-ID: <2286504.krVn7HG0xW@xps> In-Reply-To: <20181008122509.GA5158@jerin> References: <20180913134707.23698-1-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <80a5780a-f66b-ad7c-8327-37644c69efda@intel.com> <20181008122509.GA5158@jerin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP checksum definition 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, 08 Oct 2018 13:03:53 -0000 08/10/2018 14:25, Jerin Jacob: > From: Ferruh Yigit > > On 10/8/2018 12:55 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > From: Ferruh Yigit > > >> On 10/8/2018 10:37 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > >>> From: Thomas Monjalon > > >>>> 08/10/2018 10:24, Jerin Jacob: > > >>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit > > >>>>>> On 10/6/2018 1:18 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > >>>>>>> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com] > > >>>>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon > > >>>>>>>>> However, we should re-visit the flag PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Do we need to block this patch due to the exiting PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD > > >>>>>>>> definition? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I already added the author of the PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD flag and ethdev and mbuf > > >>>>>>>> maintainers in this list. So what else I need make forward progress > > >>>>>>>> on this patch? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I think, the definition of PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD based on HW capability. It > > >>>>>>>> is safe to assume that ALL HW can support CKSUM BAD if the feature is > > >>>>>>>> available and hence it is more portable. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Yes, as I remember PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD is based on DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Switching to two bit won't reduce the portability, HW supports only reporting > > >>>>>> CKSUM_BAD can set BAD || UNKNOWN. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> UNKNOWN is not a bit. It is represented as 0. It spec has 2 bit, then > > >>>>> driver need to report GOOD as well. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Same applies for PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM as well. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> And I think patch is not blocked by PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD, it can be changed > > >>>>>> separately, for this patch question is can we represent PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_* with > > >>>>>> two bits, to have BAD/GOOD/UNKNOWN? > > >>>> > > >>>> Yes, exact. > > >>>> > > >>>> PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD must be left aside. > > >>>> We should just avoid taking it as a reference. > > >>>> And we can reconsider its definition later. > > >>> > > >>> OK. > > >>> > > >>> IMO, Using 2 bit scheme for tunneled checksum has following performance > > >>> issue from driver side. > > >>> > > >>> Driver need to mark the packet as GOOD. All the HW can support > > >>> detection of BAD. That not necessary mean GOOD in case of tunnel packet, > > >>> so driver has to detect the packet is tunneled and packet is not BAD > > >>> then mark GOOD. > > >> > > >> Yes UNKNOWN is not a bit, but a state, why don't use it? Why driver has to check > > >> it is GOOD? > > > > > > The application is going to check is it GOOD or not. Not the driver, > > > Right? My concern was, If application starts dropping the packet instead checking the BAD, if > > > it checks == !GOOD. > > > > Got it, but when 2 bits state introduced, app should check if check == BAD for > > drop decision, because it is not GOOD || BAD anymore. > > Got it. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> 0x0 => UNKNOWN > > >> 0x1 => BAD > > >> 0x2 => GOOD > > >> 0x3 => ? (invalid perhaps) > > >> > > >> HW that supports detecting good packets can set BAD || GOOD state, HW can detect > > >> only BAD packet can set BAD || UNKNOWN state. > > >> > > >> If BAD is not set, there is an ambiguity of state, lets clarify it in lower > > >> level, if it is UNKNOWN, let application know it is UNKNOWN. > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > How about the following then? > > > > > > /** > > > * Mask of bits used to determine the status of outer RX L4 checksum. > > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_UNKNOWN: no information about the outer RX L4 checksum > > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_BAD: the outer L4 checksum in the packet is wrong > > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_GOOD: the outer L4 checksum in the packet is valid > > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_INVALID: invalid outer L4 checksum state. > > > * > > > * The detection of PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_GOOD shall be based on the given > > > * HW capability, At minimum, the PMD should support > > > * PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_UNKNOWN and PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_BAD states > > > * if the offload is available. > > > */ > > > #define PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_MASK ((1ULL << 21) | (1ULL << 22)) > > > > > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_UNKNOWN 0 > > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD (1ULL << 21) > > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD (1ULL << 22) > > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_INVALID ((1ULL << 21) | (1ULL << 22)) > > > > Looks good to me. > > If there is no objection with above flag definition, I will send the v3 with that. Just one objection about the name. Why naming it EL4 and commenting as outer L4? I think we should choose between "external" and "outer". Convention seems to be choosing "outer" word. So I suggest PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_*.