DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	"Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] i40e VXLAN TX checksum rework
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 15:29:59 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BADE4@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5476F28F.7010802@6wind.com>

Hi Oliver,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:45 AM
> To: Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] i40e VXLAN TX checksum rework
> 
> Hi Jijiang,
> 
> Please find below some comments about the specifications. The global
> picture looks fine to me.
> 
> I've not reviewed the patch right now, but it's in the pipe.
> 
> On 11/27/2014 09:18 AM, Jijiang Liu wrote:
> > We have got some feedback about backward compatibility of VXLAN TX checksum offload API with 1G/10G NIC after the i40e VXLAN
> TX checksum codes were applied, so we have to rework the APIs on i40e, including the changes of mbuf, i40e PMD and csum engine.
> >
> > The main changes in mbuf are as follows,
> > In place of removing PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM, we introducing 2 new flags: PKT_TX_OUT_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT,
> and a new field: l4_tun_len.
> 
> What about PKT_TX_OUT_UDP_CKSUM instead of PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT? It's
> maybe more coherent with the other names.

FVL HW don't support outer L4 checksum offload.
But to calculate inner checksums correctly, it needs a hint from SW about L4 Tunnelling Type.

> 
> 
> > Replace the inner_l2_len and the inner_l3_len field with the outer_l2_len and outer_l3_len field.
> >
> > The existing flags are listed below,
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM:     HW IPv4 checksum for non-tunnelling packet/ HW inner IPv4 checksum for tunnelling packet
> > PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM:    HW TCP checksum for non-tunnelling packet/ HW inner TCP checksum for tunnelling packet
> > PKT_TX_SCTP_CKSUM:   HW SCTP checksum for non-tunnelling packet/ HW inner SCTP checksum for tunnelling packet
> > PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM:    HW SCTP checksum for non-tunnelling packet/ HW inner SCTP checksum for tunnelling packet
> > PKT_TX_IPV4:        IPv4 with no HW checksum offload for non-tunnelling packet/inner IPv4 with no HW checksum offload for
> tunnelling packet
> > PKT_TX_IPV6:        IPv6 non-tunnelling packet/ inner IPv6 with no HW checksum offload for tunnelling packet
> 
> As I suggested in the TSO thread, I think the following semantics
> is easier to understand for the user:
> 
>    - PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM: tell the NIC to compute IP cksum
> 
>    - PKT_TX_IPV4: tell the NIC it's an IPv4 packet. Required for L4
>      checksum offload or TSO.
> 
>    - PKT_TX_IPV6: tell the NIC it's an IPv6 packet. Required for L4
>      checksum offload or TSO.
> 
> I think it won't make a big difference in the FVL driver.

No, no big difference here, but I still think it will be a bit cleaner if all 3 flags would be nutually exclusive.
In fact,  we can unite all 3 of them them into 2 bits,    same as we doing for L4 checksum flags.

> 
> 
> > let's use a few examples to demonstrate how to use these flags:
> > Let say we have a tunnel packet: eth_hdr_out/ipv4_hdr_out/udp_hdr_out/vxlan_hdr/ehtr_hdr_in/ipv4_hdr_in/tcp_hdr_in.There
> could be several scenarios:
> >
> > A) User requests HW offload for ipv4_hdr_out checksum.
> > He doesn't care is it a tunnelled packet or not.
> > So he sets:
> >
> > mb->l2_len =  eth_hdr_out;
> > mb->l3_len = ipv4_hdr_out;
> > mb->ol_flags |= PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM;
> >
> > B) User is aware that it is a tunnelled packet and requests HW offload for ipv4_hdr_in and tcp_hdr_in *only*.
> > He doesn't care about outer IP checksum offload.
> > In that case, for FVL  he has 2 choices:
> >     1. Treat that packet as a 'proper' tunnelled packet, and fill all the fields:
> >       mb->l2_len =  eth_hdr_in;
> >       mb->l3_len = ipv4_hdr_in;
> >       mb->outer_l2_len = eth_hdr_out;
> >       mb->outer_l3_len = ipv4_hdr_out;
> >       mb->l4tun_len = vxlan_hdr;
> >       mb->ol_flags |= PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT | PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM |  PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM;
> >
> >     2. As user doesn't care about outer IP hdr checksum, he can treat everything before ipv4_hdr_in as L2 header.
> >     So he knows, that it is a tunnelled packet, but makes HW to treat it as ordinary (non-tunnelled) packet:
> >       mb->l2_len = eth_hdr_out + ipv4_hdr_out + udp_hdr_out + vxlan_hdr + ehtr_hdr_in;
> >       mb->l3_len = ipv4_hdr_in;
> >       mb->ol_flags |= PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM |  PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM;
> >
> > i40e PMD will support both B.1 and B.2.
> > ixgbe/igb/em PMD supports only B.2.
> > if HW supports both - it will be up to user app which method to choose.
> 
> I think we should have a flag to advertise outer ip and outer udp
> checksum offload support, so the application knows which mode can
> be used.

You mean a new DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_* value, right?
Something like:  DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_TUNNEL?
And make i40e_dev_info_get() to return it?
Yes, forgot about it, sounds like a proper thing to do. 

Konstantin

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Olivier

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-11-27 15:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-27  8:18 Jijiang Liu
2014-11-27  8:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] mbuf:add two TX offload flags and change three fields Jijiang Liu
2014-11-27 10:00   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-11-27 13:14     ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-11-28  9:17       ` Olivier MATZ
     [not found]     ` <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01D9EEA0@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
2014-11-27 14:56       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-11-27 17:01         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-11-28 10:45           ` Olivier MATZ
2014-11-28 11:16             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-11-30 14:50             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-01  2:30               ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-12-01  9:52                 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-01 11:58                   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-01 12:28                     ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-01 13:07                       ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-12-01 14:31                         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-11-27  8:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] i40e:PMD change for VXLAN TX checksum Jijiang Liu
2014-11-27  8:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] testpmd:rework csum forward engine Jijiang Liu
2014-11-27 10:23   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-11-27  8:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] i40e VXLAN TX checksum rework Liu, Jijiang
2014-11-27  9:44 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-11-27 10:12   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-11-27 12:06     ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-11-27 12:07   ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-11-27 15:29   ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2014-11-27 16:31     ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-12-03  8:02       ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-11-28  9:26     ` Olivier MATZ

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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BADE4@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com \
    --to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jijiang.liu@intel.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    /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).