From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <jijiang.liu@intel.com> Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50195231C for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:48:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2014 05:59:18 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,462,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="628576881" Received: from pgsmsx106.gar.corp.intel.com ([10.221.44.98]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2014 05:59:15 -0800 Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.110.14) by pgsmsx106.gar.corp.intel.com (10.221.44.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:59:13 +0800 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.110]) by SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.240]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:59:13 +0800 From: "Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com> To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Thread-Topic: [PATCH v3 08/13] testpmd: rework csum forward engine Thread-Index: AQHQBRWmer6OyI02Pky5cGdSWsvK9pxyMg8AgAASAwCAALKjIA== Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:59:11 +0000 Message-ID: <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01D9EA9A@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1415984609-2484-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <1416524335-22753-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <1416524335-22753-9-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BA62A@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> <5475B622.8030705@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <5475B622.8030705@6wind.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "jigsaw@gmail.com" <jigsaw@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 08/13] testpmd: rework csum forward engine X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:48:22 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 7:15 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw; Liu, Jijiang; Liu, Yong; jigsaw@gmail.com; Ric= hardson, > Bruce > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/13] testpmd: rework csum forward engine >=20 > Hi Konstantin, >=20 > On 11/26/2014 11:10 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > As I can see you removed code that sets up TX_PKT_IPV4 and TX_PKT_IPV6 = of > ol_flags. > > I think that we need to keep it. > > The reason for that is: > > With FVL, to make HW TX checksum offload work, SW is responsible to pro= vide > to the HW information about L3 header. > > Possible values are: > > - IPv4 hdr with HW checksum calculation > > - IPV4 hdr (checksum done by SW) > > - IPV6 hdr > > - unknown > > So let say to for the packet: ETHER_HDR/IPV6_HDR/TCP_HDR/DATA To > > request HW TCP checksum offload, SW have to provide to HW information > > that it is a packet with IPV6 header (plus as for ixgbe: l2_hdr_len, l3= _hdr_len, > l4_type, l4_hdr_len). > > That's why TX_PKT_IPV4 and TX_PKT_IPV6 were introduced. > > > > Yes, it is a change in public API for HW TX offload, but I don't see > > any other way we can overcome it (apart from make TX function itself to= parse > a packet, which is obviously not a good choice). > > Note that existing apps working on existing HW (ixgbe/igb/em) are not a= ffected. > > Though apps that supposed to be run on FVL HW too have to follow new > convention. > > > > So I suggest we keep setting these flags in csumonly.c >=20 > Right, I missed these flags. > It's indeed an API change, but maybe it makes sense, and setting it is no= t a big > cost for the application. >=20 > So I would also need to slightly modify the API help in the following > patches: > - [04/13] mbuf: add help about TX checksum flags > - [10/13] mbuf: generic support for TCP segmentation offload >=20 > I'll send a v4 this afternoon that integrates this change. After your patch is applied, I will send a patch of i40e driver change for= VXLAN Tx checksum. =20 > Do you know precisely when the flags PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 must be > set by the application? Is it only the hw checksum and tso use case? > If yes, I'll add it in the API help too. >=20 > By the way (this is probably off-topic), but I'm wondering if the TX flag= s should > have the same values than the RX flags: >=20 > #define PKT_TX_IPV4 PKT_RX_IPV4_HDR > #define PKT_TX_IPV6 PKT_RX_IPV6_HDR >=20 > > Apart from that , the patch looks good to me. > > And yes, we would need to change the the way we handle TX offload for > tunnelled packets. >=20 > Thank you very much Konstantin for your review. >=20 > Regards, > Olivier