From: Jie Hai <haijie1@huawei.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>,
huangdengdui <huangdengdui@huawei.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: <lihuisong@huawei.com>, <fengchengwen@huawei.com>,
<liuyonglong@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/hns3: fix Rx packet truncation when KEEP CRC enabled
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:28:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d130d16a-4eda-baa4-0efa-1c81dfad4f87@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eea7caf7-d4b9-c146-9f7a-186baa763e38@huawei.com>
Hi, Ferruh
Kindly ping for reply.
Thanks,
Jie Hai
On 2024/3/8 19:36, Jie Hai wrote:
> On 2024/3/1 19:10, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 6:55 AM, huangdengdui wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2024/2/29 17:25, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:58 AM, huangdengdui wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2024/2/28 21:07, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 2:27 AM, huangdengdui wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024/2/27 0:43, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 3:16 AM, Jie Hai wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024/2/23 21:53, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 3:58 AM, Jie Hai wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Ferruh,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your review.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024/2/7 22:15, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2024 1:10 AM, Jie Hai wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Dengdui Huang <huangdengdui@huawei.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When KEEP_CRC offload is enabled, some packets will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truncated and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the CRC is still be stripped in following cases:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. For HIP08 hardware, the packet type is TCP and the length
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is less than or equal to 60B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. For other hardwares, the packet type is IP and the length
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is less than or equal to 60B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If a device doesn't support the offload by some packets, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> option to disable offload for that device, instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>> calculating it in
>>>>>>>>>>>> software and append it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The KEEP CRC feature of hns3 is faulty only in the specific
>>>>>>>>>>> packet
>>>>>>>>>>> type and small packet(<60B) case.
>>>>>>>>>>> What's more, the small ethernet packet is not common.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you have a specific usecase, or requirement to
>>>>>>>>>>>> support the
>>>>>>>>>>>> offload.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some users of hns3 are already using this feature.
>>>>>>>>>>> So we cannot drop this offload
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2492,10 +2544,16 @@ hns3_recv_pkts_simple(void *rx_queue,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> goto pkt_err;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rxm->packet_type = hns3_rx_calc_ptype(rxq,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> l234_info,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ol_info);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (rxm->packet_type ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RTE_PTYPE_L2_ETHER_TIMESYNC)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rxm->ol_flags |= RTE_MBUF_F_RX_IEEE1588_PTP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (unlikely(rxq->crc_len > 0)) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (hns3_need_recalculate_crc(rxq, rxm))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + hns3_recalculate_crc(rxq, rxm);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + rxm->pkt_len -= rxq->crc_len;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + rxm->data_len -= rxq->crc_len;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Removing 'crc_len' from 'mbuf->pkt_len' & 'mbuf->data_len' is
>>>>>>>>>>>> practically same as stripping CRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't count CRC length in the statistics, but it should be
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessible
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the payload by the user.
>>>>>>>>>>> Our drivers are behaving exactly as you say.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If so I missed why mbuf 'pkt_len' and 'data_len' reduced by
>>>>>>>>>> 'rxq->crc_len', can you please explain what above lines does?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @@ -2470,8 +2523,7 @@ hns3_recv_pkts_simple(void *rx_queue,
>>>>>>>>> rxdp->rx.bd_base_info = 0;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rxm->data_off = RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
>>>>>>>>> - rxm->pkt_len =
>>>>>>>>> (uint16_t)(rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.rx.pkt_len)) -
>>>>>>>>> - rxq->crc_len;
>>>>>>>>> + rxm->pkt_len = rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.rx.pkt_len);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the previous code above, the 'pkt_len' is set to the length
>>>>>>>>> obtained
>>>>>>>>> from the BD. the length obtained from the BD already contains
>>>>>>>>> CRC length.
>>>>>>>>> But as you said above, the DPDK requires that the length of the
>>>>>>>>> mbuf
>>>>>>>>> does not contain CRC length . So we subtract 'rxq->crc_len' from
>>>>>>>>> mbuf'pkt_len' and 'data_len'. This patch doesn't change the
>>>>>>>>> logic, it
>>>>>>>>> just moves the code around.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, I am not saying mbuf length shouldn't contain CRC length,
>>>>>>>> indeed
>>>>>>>> it is other way around and this is our confusion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CRC length shouldn't be in the statistics, I mean in received
>>>>>>>> bytes stats.
>>>>>>>> Assume that received packet is 128 bytes and we know it has the
>>>>>>>> CRC,
>>>>>>>> Rx received bytes stat should be 124 (rx_bytes = 128 - CRC = 124)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But mbuf->data_len & mbuf->pkt_len should have full frame length,
>>>>>>>> including CRC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As application explicitly requested to KEEP CRC, it will know
>>>>>>>> last 4
>>>>>>>> bytes are CRC.
>>>>>>>> Anything after 'mbuf->data_len' in the mbuf buffer is not valid,
>>>>>>>> so if
>>>>>>>> you reduce 'mbuf->data_len' by CRC size, application can't know
>>>>>>>> if 4
>>>>>>>> bytes after 'mbuf->data_len' is valid CRC or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the implementation of other PMDs supported KEEP_CRC is like
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>> In addition, there are probably many users that are already using
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> If we modify it, it may cause applications incompatible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is documented in the ethdev [1], better to follow the
>>>>>> documentation
>>>>>> for all PMDs, can you please highlight the relevant driver code,
>>>>>> we can
>>>>>> discuss it with their maintainers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alternatively we can document this additionally in the KEEP_CRC
>>>>>> feature
>>>>>> document if it helps for the applications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h?h=v23.11#n257
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently，this documentation does not describe whether pkt_len and
>>>>> data_len should contain crc_len.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it is clear that pkt_len and data_len should contain
>>>> crc_len, we
>>>> can ask for more comments.
>>> This patch doesn't change the logic for hns3 PMD and the
>>> implementation of
>>> other PMDs supported KEEP_CRC is like hns3 PMD. Can we merge this
>>> patch first?
>>>
>>
>> If hns3 behaving against the documented behavior, I don't understand why
>> you are pushing for merging this patch, instead of fixing it.
>>
>>
>> Other drivers behavior is something else, not directly related to this
>> patch, but again if you can provide references we can discuss with their
>> maintainers.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean that we add this description in the KEEP_CRC feature
>>>>> document
>>>>> and notify all drivers that support KEEP_CRC to follow this
>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, can you merge this patch first?
>>>>> Then we send a RFC to disscuss it with all PMDs maintainer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not for drivers, just a suggestion that if we should update feature
>>>> documentation with above information for users. So there is no
>>>> dependency to features document update.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sorry I'm more confused. What should we do next?
>>
>> There is already API documentation about KEEP_CRC, I think that is
>> already sufficient for driver developers.
>>
>> I am just brainstorming if updating './doc/guides/nics/features.rst' can
>> help end user, but it is not an action or blocker for this patch.
>>
>> Next step is to update this path.
>>
>
>
> Hi, Ferruh,
>
> Thanks for your attention.
> I have the following suggestions for the email discussion.
> Please take the time to see if they make sense.
>
> For pkt_len and data_len, there is no clear document indicating
> whether the length should include the CRC.
> However, according to the usage of the driver and the APP, it
> is obvious that almost all drivers do not include the CRC by default.
>
> The issue you raised about pkt_len/data_len supposedly containing CRC
> and users not being able to get CRC has been around for a long
> time, at least dating back to DPDK 18.11 when there was no hns3
> driver. And there is no clear solution to this problem for now.
>
> This issue is not caused by the current patch and is not related
> to the problem to be solved by the current patch.
> Therefore, it is recommended that the problem corresponding to the current
> patch should be fixed first.
>
> The problem that the pkt_len/data_len should contain the CRC
> and the user should access the CRC can be discussed later.
>
> I have the following two options:
>
> 1. Modify the corresponding document to specify that pkt_len/data_len
> should contain CRC, and modify all related drivers. This requires the
> participation and discussion of other driver developers.
>
> 2. Users can use rte_pktmbuf_dump() to print packet data.
> The length of the packet data to be printed can be specified.
> However, the API restricts that the length of the data required is
> less than data_len. Therefore, users cannot obtain the CRC value.
> However, the result of the rte_pktmbuf_tailroom() API can tell how
> many bytes after data_len are accessible. Users can use
> rte_pktmbuf_tailroom
> and keep_crc offload to obtain the CRC value of packets.
>
>> .
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-22 6:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-06 1:10 Jie Hai
2024-02-07 14:15 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-20 3:58 ` Jie Hai
2024-02-23 13:53 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-26 3:16 ` Jie Hai
2024-02-26 16:43 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-28 2:27 ` huangdengdui
2024-02-28 13:07 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-29 3:58 ` huangdengdui
2024-02-29 9:25 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-03-01 6:55 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-01 11:10 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-03-08 11:36 ` Jie Hai
2024-03-22 6:28 ` Jie Hai [this message]
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=d130d16a-4eda-baa4-0efa-1c81dfad4f87@huawei.com \
--to=haijie1@huawei.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=fengchengwen@huawei.com \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
--cc=huangdengdui@huawei.com \
--cc=lihuisong@huawei.com \
--cc=liuyonglong@huawei.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).