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 B9D7CA00E6 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:48:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76BA71BDEB; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:48:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2D1DE3 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:48:39 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Aug 2019 03:48:38 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,360,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="179803868" Received: from irsmsx153.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.75]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Aug 2019 03:48:36 -0700 Received: from irsmsx112.ger.corp.intel.com (10.108.20.5) by IRSMSX153.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:48:35 +0100 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.164]) by irsmsx112.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:48:35 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Matan Azrad , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: Thomas Monjalon , "Yigit, Ferruh" , Andrew Rybchenko , Olivier Matz Thread-Topic: [PATCH 2/2] doc: announce new mbuf field for LRO Thread-Index: AQHVTGc16KeOU/cz2kOGn4+V+To/WqbuRh+ggAAf2gCAAQTTYIAAJLwAgAAiQMCAAUl1AIAAFYfA Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 10:48:35 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A63A39@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1565103383-23864-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <1565103383-23864-2-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A62AC0@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A630E5@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A6325D@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiYjhhM2Y1OWMtNmUzNS00YjdhLWFhYTYtNmE5NDc0ZTgzMDI5IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoia2FtSkNNOG9GUlNFcUU4TFNhdjRGQ1lla2xGYm1NcVkzV3R5bWxxdStqWTVaVE5xY1R5RkI0eTcwaWdRaXJaZiJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.2.0.6 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Matan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 b= y > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 4 ++++ > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > > > > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > > > > index c0cd9bc..e826b69 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > > > > @@ -45,6 +45,10 @@ Deprecation Notices > > > > > > > - ``eal_parse_pci_DomBDF`` replaced by ``rte_pci_addr_pars= e`` > > > > > > > - ``rte_eal_compare_pci_addr`` replaced by > > > > > > > ``rte_pci_addr_cmp`` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +* 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 pac= ket. > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > Wonder how the upper layer will use that information (except fo= r > > stats)? > > > > > > Could you guys provide any examples? > > > > > > > > > > 1. Stats, allow to calc accurate PPS. > > > > > 2. Supply accurate information unlike the seg size which cannot b= e > > > > accurate. > > > > > 2. Let the user all the information (segs num allow an average se= g > > > > > size calculation) > > > > > > > > So just for stats, right? > > > > > > Stats it is one option. > > > > > > The user configured LRO, means he wants X > 1 packets to be aggregate= d > > by the port. > > > > > > Don't you think X is interesting for the user? > > > > > > For example, maybe there is Y for the next calculation: > > > > > > If average(X) < Y: > > > Stop LRO - not very good for performance to aggregate small number > > of packets - stop LRO. > > > > > > > Might be, but I think user can use other metrics (let say average aggre= gated > > packet size) for that purpose. >=20 > Yes, but I think it is better to supply the segs number which is an accur= ate number instead of average size of segment. > Then, user can decide any calculation he prefers. >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, wouldn't it be more plausible to extend PMD itself to > > > > provide some extra statistics? > > > > Just a thought. > > > > > > Yes, may be interesting but it can be redundant work when the user do= n't > > need it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also what PMD should do if HW does supports LRO, but doesn't to > > > > > > information? > > > > > > > > > > If the PMD knows all the segments size he can calculate it, no? > > > > > 0 means PMD doesn't support it. > > > > > > > > I mean HW/PMD might support LRO, but doesn't provide information > > > > about number of coalesced segments. > > > > What PMD should do in that case? > > > > > > As I said, to set this field with 0 and set the PKT_RX_LRO flag in ol= _flags. > > > 0 in this case means support LRO but cannot supply the segments num. > > > > Ok..., but then what for then to set PKT_RX_LRO at all? > > From PMD perspective it would be easier not to set that flag at all and= not to > > touch tso_segsz. >=20 > The user should know that LRO is working. LRO flag should be set in any c= ase. Well, then I think you trying to introduce a new requirement for PMD. Right now, as I can see it is optional, and supposed to be set only when PMD RX path updates tso_segsz. /** * When packets are coalesced by a hardware or virtual driver, this flag * can be set in the RX mbuf, meaning that the m->tso_segsz field is * valid and is set to the segment size of original packets. */ #define PKT_RX_LRO (1ULL << 16) >=20 > > > > > > Do you familiar with PMDs that supports LRO but cannot provide the > > segments num? > > > If so, what do these PMDs can provide instead? > > > > Yes, ixgbe PMD. > > It does support TCP_LRO offload, and when enabled, does coalesce the > > packets, but doesn't set PKT_RX_LRO and doesn't touch tso_segsz. >=20 > I think it should be changed to set the flag. >=20 > > > > > > > > > Still set DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO as enabled RX offload, but don't > > > > set PKT_RX_LRO flag in the RX-ed mbuf, even if it does contain > > > > coalesced packets? > > > > > > No, read above. > > > > > > > As I understand that what happens now. > > > > It is probably ok by me (as means no changes in ixgbe PMD)... > > > > But wouldn't that mean no defined way for the user to determine wil= l > > > > HW/PMD provide that information or not? > > > > > > Will compare to 0, see above. > > > > I mean how the user will determine in advance would given PMD/HW > > provide that info in tso_segsz or not? > > Wait for the first LRO packet? Something else? >=20 > Or wait to for the first LRO packet, or we can add a new ethdev capabilit= y for it. >=20 > What do you think? I still in doubt is it really worth to support that feature at all... Though if we'll decide to add it, then I think it needs to be=20 a new capability DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_LRO_STAT (or so) and probably new mbuf.ol_flag value for it. Konstantin