DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
	Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] doc: announce new mbuf field for LRO
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 06:49:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM0PR0502MB401939AC8E916092C37A7148D28B0@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3071401.IZAg4H9azB@thomas>

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 <matan@mellanox.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > --- 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 <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
> > >
> > > 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.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-02  6:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-06 14:56 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] doc: announce ethdev ABI change for LRO fields Matan Azrad
2019-08-06 14:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] doc: announce new mbuf field for LRO Matan Azrad
2019-08-06 15:58   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-08-06 18:50     ` Matan Azrad
2019-08-07 10:17       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-08-07 12:35         ` Matan Azrad
2019-08-07 14:18           ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-08-08 10:16             ` Matan Azrad
2019-08-08 10:48               ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-08-08 11:16                 ` Matan Azrad
2019-08-08 16:26                   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-08-06 18:17   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-08-10 21:31     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-24 23:41       ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-06-02  6:49         ` Matan Azrad [this message]
2020-07-27  8:00           ` Olivier Matz
2020-07-27  8:41             ` Matan Azrad
2020-07-27  9:07               ` Olivier Matz
2023-06-12 16:38   ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-08-06 15:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] doc: announce ethdev ABI change for LRO fields Andrew Rybchenko
2019-08-10 21:40   ` Thomas Monjalon

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=AM0PR0502MB401939AC8E916092C37A7148D28B0@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=matan@mellanox.com \
    --cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.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).