From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440DC1518
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 09:54:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21])
by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2014 00:51:26 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,475,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="644916798"
Received: from kmsmsx152.gar.corp.intel.com ([172.21.73.87])
by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2014 00:54:34 -0800
Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.154) by
KMSMSX152.gar.corp.intel.com (172.21.73.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
id 14.3.195.1; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:54:11 +0800
Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.110]) by
shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.216]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001;
Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:54:09 +0800
From: "Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v4 08/13] testpmd: rework csum forward engine
Thread-Index: AQHQCYp0xXVfhiiHtkGlUBA/d8RRSpxyzroAgADcEYCAAB9IgIAB7+oA
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:54:09 +0000
Message-ID: <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01D9F23E@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1416524335-22753-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
<1417014295-29064-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
<1417014295-29064-9-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BAA86@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
<5476EA87.4040807@6wind.com>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BACAB@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BACAB@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.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 v4 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: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:54:42 -0000
Hi Olivier,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:02 PM
> To: Olivier MATZ; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw; Liu, Jijiang; Liu, Yong; jigsaw@gmail.com; Ric=
hardson,
> Bruce
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 08/13] testpmd: rework csum forward engine
>=20
> Hi Oliver,
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:11 AM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw; Liu, Jijiang; Liu, Yong; jigsaw@gmail.com;
> > Richardson, Bruce
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/13] testpmd: rework csum forward engine
> >
> > Hi Konstantin,
> >
> > On 11/26/2014 09:02 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > >> +/* if possible, calculate the checksum of a packet in hw or sw,
> > >> + * depending on the testpmd command line configuration */ static
> > >> +uint64_t process_inner_cksums(void *l3_hdr, uint16_t ethertype,
> > >> +uint16_t l3_len,
> > >> + uint8_t l4_proto, uint16_t testpmd_ol_flags) {
> > >> + struct ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr =3D l3_hdr;
> > >> + struct udp_hdr *udp_hdr;
> > >> + struct tcp_hdr *tcp_hdr;
> > >> + struct sctp_hdr *sctp_hdr;
> > >> + uint64_t ol_flags =3D 0;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (ethertype =3D=3D _htons(ETHER_TYPE_IPv4)) {
> > >> + ipv4_hdr =3D l3_hdr;
> > >> + ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum =3D 0;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_IP_CKSUM)
> > >> + ol_flags |=3D PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM;
> > >> + else
> > >> + ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum =3D get_ipv4_cksum(ipv4_hdr);
> > >> +
> > >> + ol_flags |=3D PKT_TX_IPV4;
> > >
> > > Flags PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_IPV4, PKT_TX_IPV6 are all mutually
> exclusive.
> > > So it should be, I think:
> > >
> > > if (testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_IP_CKSUM) {
> > > ol_flags |=3D PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM;
> > > } else {
> > > ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum =3D get_ipv4_cksum(ipv4_hdr);
> > > ol_flags |=3D PKT_TX_IPV4; }
> >
> > It seems normal that PKT_TX_IPV4 are PKT_TX_IPV6 exclusive, but do you
> > mean that PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 are exclusive too? It looks
> > strange to me.
> >
> > My understanding of the meaning of the flags is:
> >
> > - PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM: tell the NIC to compute IP cksum
> My initial thought:
> It tells the NIC that it is an IPV4 packet for which it has to compute ch=
ecksum.
>=20
> >
> > - PKT_TX_IPV4: tell the NIC it's an IPv4 packet. Required for L4
> > checksum offload or TSO.
>=20
> It tells the NIC that it is an IPV4 packet for which it shouldn't compute=
checksum.
>=20
> >
> > - PKT_TX_IPV6: tell the NIC it's an IPv6 packet. Required for L4
> > checksum offload or TSO.
>=20
> Yes.
>=20
> >
> > If it's a i40e driver requirement, don't you think it's better to
> > change the driver?
There should be two logics in csum engine, which is that either HW compute=
s TX checksum (using PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) or SW compute TX checksum(use PKT_TX_=
IPV4(or another flag) to tell driver no IP checksum offload requirement ),
I think we shouldn't use L3 flag to tell driver what HW need do for L4, L3=
and L4 flag should be separated .
> Yes, it could be done in both ways:
> either all 3 flags are mutually exclusive or first two and third one are =
mutually
> exclusive.
>=20
> Current i40e PMD seems to work correctly with the second way too.
>=20
> Though the second way implies a specific order for PMD to check flags.
> Something like:
> if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) {..} else if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {.=
..} else ...
> would work correctly.
I40e driver use this way.
> But:
> if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {...} else if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) {.=
.} else
> wouldn't.
> >
> > >> +/* Calculate the checksum of outer header (only vxlan is
> > >> +supported,
> > >> + * meaning IP + UDP). The caller already checked that it's a vxlan
> > >> + * packet */
> > >> +static uint64_t
> > >> +process_outer_cksums(void *outer_l3_hdr, uint16_t outer_ethertype,
> > >> + uint16_t outer_l3_len, uint16_t testpmd_ol_flags) {
> > >> + struct ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr =3D outer_l3_hdr;
> > >> + struct ipv6_hdr *ipv6_hdr =3D outer_l3_hdr;
> > >> + struct udp_hdr *udp_hdr;
> > >> + uint64_t ol_flags =3D 0;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_CKSUM)
> > >> + ol_flags |=3D PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (outer_ethertype =3D=3D _htons(ETHER_TYPE_IPv4)) {
> > >> + ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum =3D 0;
> > >> +
> > >> + if ((testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_CKSUM)
> =3D=3D 0)
> > >> + ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum =3D get_ipv4_cksum(ipv4_hdr);
> > >> + }
> > >> +
> > >> + udp_hdr =3D (struct udp_hdr *)((char *)outer_l3_hdr + outer_l3_len=
);
> > >> + /* do not recalculate udp cksum if it was 0 */
> > >> + if (udp_hdr->dgram_cksum !=3D 0) {
> > >> + udp_hdr->dgram_cksum =3D 0;
> > >> + if ((testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_CKSUM)
> =3D=3D 0) {
> > >
> > > In fact, FVL is not able to do HW caclualtion for outer L4, only oute=
r IPV4
> cksum is supported.
> > > So no need for:
> > > if (testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM) { above.
> > > And yes, if user will select to calculate inner checksums by HW - out=
er UDP
> checksum might be invalid anyway.
> >
> > I may have misunderstood how vxlan works, so I agree this code is
> > probably wrong. However, I don't find the line you are quoting in the
> > function above.
>=20
> Function: process_outer_cksums(), line 273:
>=20
> if (udp_hdr->dgram_cksum !=3D 0) {
> udp_hdr->dgram_cksum =3D 0;
> if ((testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_CKSUM) =
=3D=3D 0)
> { /* <-- THAT ONE. */
> if (outer_ethertype =3D=3D _htons(ETHER_TYPE_IPv4=
))
>=20
> I think it is no need for it there.
>=20
> >
> > I'll check how Jijiang fixed the issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Olivier