Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] ethdev: add IPv4 and L4 checksum RSS offload types

["Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 4:05 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Zhang, AlvinX
> <alvinx.zhang@intel.com>; ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ethdev: add IPv4 and L4 checksum RSS offload types
> 
> On 7/6/21 10:18 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Zhang, AlvinX <alvinx.zhang@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 3:06 PM
> >> To: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>; Zhang, Qi Z
> >> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] ethdev: add IPv4 and L4 checksum RSS offload
> >> types
> >>
> >>>> @@ -537,6 +537,8 @@ struct rte_eth_rss_conf {
> >>>>  #define ETH_RSS_PPPOE		   (1ULL << 31)
> >>>>  #define ETH_RSS_ECPRI		   (1ULL << 32)
> >>>>  #define ETH_RSS_MPLS		   (1ULL << 33)
> >>>> +#define ETH_RSS_IPV4_CHKSUM	   (1ULL << 34)
> >>>> +#define ETH_RSS_L4_CHKSUM	   (1ULL << 35)
> >>>
> >>> What does efine which L4 protocols are supported? How user will know?
> >>
> >> I think if we want to support L4 checksum RSS by using below command
> >> port config all rss (all|default|eth|vlan|...)
> >>
> >> We must define TCP/UDP/SCTP checksum RSS separately:
> >> #define ETH_RSS_TCP_CHKSUM	(1ULL << 35)
> >> #define ETH_RSS_UDP_CHKSUM	(1ULL << 36)
> >> #deifne ETH_RSS_SCTP_CHKSUM	(1ULL << 37)
> >>
> >> Here 3 bits are occupied, this is not good for there are not many bits
> available.
> >>
> >> If we only want to using it in flows, we only need to define
> >> ETH_RSS_L4_CHKSUM, because the flow pattern pointed out the L4
> >> protocol type.
> >> flow create 0 ingress pattern eth / ipv4 / tcp / end actions rss
> >> types l4-chksum end queues end / end
> >
> > +1, the pattern already give the hint to avoid the ambiguity and I think we
> already have ETH_RSS_LEVEL to figure out inner or outer.
> 
> The problem that it may be used in generic RSS flags which has no the context.
> Also even in the case of flow API context could have no L4 protocol at all.

For generic case, it can simply assume it cover all L4 checksum cases and I'm not sure if any user intend to use it as generic RSS, pmd can simply reject it if it's not necessary to support.
In flow API, if no l4 protocol in pattern , the PMD should return failure (or maybe some default behavior), and I think this is not a new question as it happens all the cases
e.g.:
pattern eth / vlan / end action rss type ipv4 .

> 
> Is UDP checksum 0 treated as no checksum and go to default queue or treated
> as a regular checksum with value equal to 0?

I think we can treat it as value 0, as least our hardware behavior like this, is this any issue?

> 
> I tend to agree that 3 flags is too much for the feature, but one flag without
> properly defined meaning is not good as well.
> 
> I just want rules to be defined and documented.'

Agree, we need more document for this. if you agree above proposal.