From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of supported Tx flags
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 00:34:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F11492C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CD55B9@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wu, Jingjing
> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 2:30 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of supported Tx flags
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 8:11 PM
> > To: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of supported
> > Tx flags
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wu, Jingjing
> > > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 8:54 AM
> > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of
> > > supported Tx flags
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 8:11 PM
> > > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
> > > > <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of
> > > > supported Tx flags
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev,
> > > > > Konstantin
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 11:59 AM
> > > > > To: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of
> > > > > supported Tx flags
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Jingjing,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Wu, Jingjing
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2017 3:36 AM
> > > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > > > > <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: fix bitmask of supported Tx
> > > > > > flags
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Add missed flags to bitmask of all supported packet Tx flags.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CC: konstantin.ananyev@intel.com
> > > > > > Fixes: 7829b8d52be0 ("net/ixgbe: add Tx preparation")
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c index 36f1c02..8454581 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> > > > > > @@ -81,13 +81,28 @@
> > > > > > #include "ixgbe_rxtx.h"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* Bit Mask to indicate what bits required for building TX
> > > > > > context */
> > > > > > +#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588
> > > > > > #define IXGBE_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK ( \
> > > > > > PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT | \
> > > > > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM | \
> > > > > > + PKT_TX_IPV4 | \
> > > > > > PKT_TX_L4_MASK | \
> > > > > > + PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST | \
> > > > > > PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | \
> > > > > > PKT_TX_MACSEC | \
> > > > > > - PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM)
> > > > > > + PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM | \
> > > > > > + PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4)
> > > > > > +#else
> > > > > > +#define IXGBE_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK ( \
> > > > > > + PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT | \
> > > > > > + PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM | \
> > > > > > + PKT_TX_IPV4 | \
> > > > >
> > > > > Wonder why ixgbe doesn't have PKT_TX_IPV6?
> > > >
> > > > Same question for e1000 and fm10k.
> > > > Also if you decided to go that way, you'll probably need to update
> > > > TX_OFFLOAD_MASK for enic and vmxnet3.
> > > > That's why I still think it would be much less hassle not to include
> > > > these flags
> > > > (PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6) into TX_OFFLOAD_MASK at all.
> > > > Konstantin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Thanks for pointing that. PKT_TX_IPV6 is missed.
> > > About whether include these flags (PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6) into
> > > TX_OFFLOAD_MASK, I think they should be Included. Think about one NIC
> > may support IPV4 L4 checksum offload, but not support IPV6? Even I don't
> > know who it is.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think such combination is possible now anyway.
> > But ok, if your preference is it to do more work and add (PKT_TX_IPV4 |
> > PKT_TX_IPV6) into all required places, I wouldn't argue.
> >
> > BTW, as a side notice, what will be really good is to have a function that
> > would take tx_offload_capabilities as an input and return tx_offload_mask.
> > That would remove necessity to update/support TX_OFFLOAD_MASK for
> > each PMD, and hopefully will allow to avoid confusion for PMD writers.
> > Though that's probably subject of another patch.
> >
>
> OK. I think what I did is more than necessary. Let me simplify the change. Thanks!
>
> And about the querying tx offload capabilities, I think it is already been done
> In rte_eth_dev_info_get. But it used another set of flags which is not TX flags
> Defined in mbuf.
I am not talking about querying device offload capabilities.
I am talking about a function that would take these capabilities reported by the
device and convert them into a set of tx offload flags, that are suitable for these capabilities.
Something like that:
uint64_t
tx_capa_to flags(uint32_t tx_capa)
{
uint64_t ol_flags;
ol_flags = 0;
if (tx_capa & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO)
ol_flags |= PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_IPV4 | PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM | PKT_TX_IPV6;
if (tx_capa & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM)
ol_flags |= PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM;
...
return ol_flags;
}
Then PMD writer wouldn't need to define TX_OFFLOAD_MASK for his PMD manually.
Instead he can just do at startup/configure phase:
txq->tx_offload_mask = tx_capa_to flags(supported_and_configured_capabilties);
Though, as I said, this is probably subject of another patch/discussion.
Konstantin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-08 0:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-24 11:50 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] mbuf: fix bitmask of Tx offload flags Jingjing Wu
2017-01-24 11:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/i40e: fix bitmask of supported Tx flags Jingjing Wu
2017-01-26 14:19 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] mbuf: fix bitmask of Tx offload flags Ferruh Yigit
2017-02-04 3:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/5] fix bitmask of supported Tx flags Jingjing Wu
2017-02-04 3:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/5] mbuf: fix bitmask of Tx offload flags Jingjing Wu
2017-02-04 3:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] net/i40e: fix bitmask of supported Tx flags Jingjing Wu
2017-02-05 10:28 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-02-06 3:02 ` Wu, Jingjing
2017-02-06 10:28 ` Olivier Matz
2017-02-07 2:30 ` Wu, Jingjing
2017-02-06 10:26 ` Olivier Matz
2017-02-07 2:30 ` Wu, Jingjing
2017-02-04 3:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] net/ixgbe: " Jingjing Wu
2017-02-05 11:59 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-02-05 12:10 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-02-06 8:53 ` Wu, Jingjing
2017-02-06 12:11 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-02-07 2:29 ` Wu, Jingjing
2017-02-08 0:34 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2017-02-04 3:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/5] net/e1000: " Jingjing Wu
2017-02-04 3:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] net/fm10k: " Jingjing Wu
2017-02-07 3:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] " Jingjing Wu
2017-02-07 3:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] net/i40e: " Jingjing Wu
2017-02-07 13:48 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-02-07 15:45 ` Wu, Jingjing
2017-02-07 16:01 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-02-07 3:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] net/ixgbe: " Jingjing Wu
2017-02-07 3:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] net/e1000: " Jingjing Wu
2017-02-07 3:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] mbuf: fix bitmask of Tx offload flags Jingjing Wu
2017-02-08 5:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/4] fix bitmask of supported Tx flags Jingjing Wu
2017-02-08 5:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] net/i40e: " Jingjing Wu
2017-02-08 5:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/4] net/ixgbe: " Jingjing Wu
2017-02-08 5:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/4] net/e1000: " Jingjing Wu
2017-02-08 5:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/4] mbuf: fix bitmask of Tx offload flags Jingjing Wu
2017-02-08 16:27 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-02-08 16:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/4] fix bitmask of supported Tx flags Ferruh Yigit
2017-02-09 1:13 ` Wu, Jingjing
2017-02-08 16:46 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-02-09 14:37 ` Ferruh Yigit
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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F11492C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jingjing.wu@intel.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).