From: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"echaudro@redhat.com" <echaudro@redhat.com>,
"mkp@redhat.com" <mkp@redhat.com>,
"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>,
"Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
"Xing, Beilei" <beilei.xing@intel.com>,
"Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
"Sinha, Abhijit" <abhijit.sinha@intel.com>,
"Nicolau, Radu" <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix checksum offloading
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 07:33:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DM4PR11MB599440E4516A228BA7AF63FBD71FA@DM4PR11MB5994.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8yQREtx9TyvCWQ-zrFvpUQWE4jbDYGnTQ0ZufN72MR+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 2:12 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; echaudro@redhat.com; mkp@redhat.com;
> stable@dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei
> <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Sinha,
> Abhijit <abhijit.sinha@intel.com>; Nicolau, Radu <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix checksum offloading
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 3:52 AM Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 1:29 AM
> > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; echaudro@redhat.com; mkp@redhat.com;
> > > stable@dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei
> > > <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>;
> > > Sinha, Abhijit <abhijit.sinha@intel.com>; Nicolau, Radu
> > > <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix checksum offloading
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 1:54 PM Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix checksum offloading
> > > > >
> > > > > The only presence of RTE_MBUF_F_TX_IPV4 can't be used as an
> > > > > indicator that a checksum offload has been requested by an application.
> > > >
> > > > According to current implementation, actually the only presence of
> > > RTE_MBUF_F_TX_IPV4 will cause IIPT = 10b, this scenario corresponds
> > > to an
> > > 'IPv4 packet with no IP checksum offload,' according to datasheet.
> > > > So, I assume in this situation, the PMD continues to operate
> > > > under the
> > > assumption that the application has not requested checksum offloading.
> > > >
> > > > Could you share more insight what is the failure, maybe we can
> > > > perform a
> > > more comprehensive investigation?
> > >
> > > I think the missing piece is that OVS passes a l2_len == l3_len == 0.
> > > In our tests, we could see that tx_errors get incremented for each
> > > failed packet to transmit.
> >
> > OK, do you think to ignore RTE_MBUF_F_TX_IPV4 when l3_len = 0 is a better
> fix?
>
> Looking at the mbuf API, l2_len and l3_len should be considered by a driver if
> ol_flags contains at least one of RTE_MBUF_F_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD,
> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_TUNNEL_*, RTE_MBUF_F_TX_TCP_SEG,
> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_(IP|TCP|UDP|SCTP)_CKSUM.
> Here, it is not the case.
>
> If the driver reads l2_len or l3_len, this is an undefined behavior:
> for example, OVS might have been using l2_len or l3_len for its internal uses
> (though I agree it would be risky for an application to do so).
>
> We probably need to fix access to l2_len a few lines before my patch.
>
> if (m->ol_flags & RTE_MBUF_F_TX_TUNNEL_MASK &&
> !(m->ol_flags & RTE_MBUF_F_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD))
> offset |= (m->outer_l2_len >> 1)
> << IAVF_TX_DESC_LENGTH_MACLEN_SHIFT;
> else
> offset |= (m->l2_len >> 1)
> << IAVF_TX_DESC_LENGTH_MACLEN_SHIFT;
>
>
> But to be clear, no I don't think looking at l3_len value is better:
> it should not be read at all.
Yes, you may be correct; it appears that this issue is unrelated to l3_len. The primary concern is to prevent the configuration of Tx descriptors with incorrect values.
Based on your description, it seems the problem arises when the PMD sets MACLEN to 0 and also configures IIPT as 01b, Is this correct?
To prevent this issue, we could implement a check where, if l2_len is 0, we simply ignore the IIPT configuration and keep it at 0. (which leads to same configure with your patch)
Regarding your mention of 'fix access to l2_len,' if l2_len is 0, there's no change in the offset regardless of whether l2_len is accessed or not. Did you mean setting a fixed value of MACLEN to 14?"
>
>
> --
> David Marchand
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-22 7:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-18 9:03 David Marchand
2023-08-21 8:03 ` Eelco Chaudron
2023-08-21 8:22 ` David Marchand
2023-08-21 11:54 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2023-08-21 17:29 ` David Marchand
2023-08-22 1:52 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2023-08-22 6:11 ` David Marchand
2023-08-22 7:33 ` Zhang, Qi Z [this message]
2023-08-22 7:39 ` David Marchand
2023-08-22 7:59 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2023-08-22 10:10 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2023-08-23 6:29 ` [PATCH v2] " David Marchand
2023-08-23 8:33 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2023-08-24 15:24 ` Patrick Robb
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=DM4PR11MB599440E4516A228BA7AF63FBD71FA@DM4PR11MB5994.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=abhijit.sinha@intel.com \
--cc=beilei.xing@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=declan.doherty@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=echaudro@redhat.com \
--cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
--cc=mkp@redhat.com \
--cc=radu.nicolau@intel.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
/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).