DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and csum forwarding engine
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 03:48:26 +0000
Message-ID: <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA1B70@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54896F4A.4070601@6wind.com>

Hi Olivier,

Thanks for your comments.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:18 PM
> To: Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and
> csum forwarding engine
> 
> Hi Jijiang,
> 
> Sorry for the late review, I was very busy these last days. Please find my
> comments below.
> 
> On 12/10/2014 02:03 AM, Jijiang Liu wrote:
> > In the current codes, the "tx_checksum set (ip|udp|tcp|sctp|vxlan) (hw|sw)
> (port-id)" command is not easy to understand and extend, so the patch set
> enhances the tx_checksum command and reworks csum forwarding engine due
> to the change of tx_checksum command.
> > The main changes of the tx_checksum command are listed below,
> >
> > 1> add "tx_checksum set tunnel (hw|sw|none) (port-id)" command
> >
> > The command is used to set/clear tunnel flag that is used to tell the NIC that the
> packetg is a tunneing packet and application want hardware TX checksum offload
> for outer layer, or inner layer, or both.
> 
> packetg -> packet
> tunneing -> tunneling
> 
> I don't understand the description: this flag cannot be set to tell the NIC that it's a
> tunnel packet because it's a configuration flag.
> Whatever the value of this configuration option, the packets can be either tunnel
> or non-tunnel packets. The real question is, what is the behavior for each packet
> type for each value for this option.

Ok,
Will replace the above the description with the following:

The 'hw/sw' option  is used to set/clear the flag of enabling TX tunneling packet checksum hardware offload in testpmd application.


> > The 'none' option means that user treat tunneling packet as ordinary packet
> when using the csum forward engine.
> > for example, 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. one of several scenarios:
> >
> > 1) User requests HW offload for ipv4_hdr_out  checksum, and doesn't care is it
> a tunnelled packet or not. So he sets:
> 
> tunnelled -> tunneled
> 
> >
> > tx_checksum set tunnel none 0
> >
> > tx_checksum set ip hw 0
> >
> > So for such case we should set tx_tunnel to 'none'.
> >
> > 2> add "tx_checksum set outer-ip (hw|sw) (port-id)" command
> >
> > The command is used to set/clear outer IP flag that is used to tell the NIC that
> application want hardware offload for outer layer.
> >
> > 3> remove the 'vxlan' option from the  "tx_checksum set
> > 3> (ip|udp|tcp|sctp|vxlan) (hw|sw) (port-id)" command
> >
> > The command is used to set IP, UDP, TCP and SCTP TX checksum flag. In the case
> of tunneling packet, the IP, UDP, TCP and SCTP flags always concern inner layer.
> >
> > Moreover, replace the TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_CKSUM flag with
> TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_TUNNEL_CKSUM flag and add the
> TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IP_CKSUM and
> TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_NON_TUNNEL_CKSUM flag in test-pmd application.
> 
> You are mixing scenario descriptions with what you do in your patchset:
> 1/ is a scenario
> 2/ and 3/ are descriptions of added/removed commands

No.
Please note the symbols for command descriptions and  scenario descriptions.

The command descriptions with ">"  symbol.
 1> add "tx_checksum set tunnel (hw|sw|none) (port-id)" command
 2> add "tx_checksum set outer-ip (hw|sw) (port-id)" command
3> (ip|udp|tcp|sctp|vxlan) (hw|sw) (port-id)" command

The scenario descriptions with ")"  symbol.
1) User requests HW offload for ipv4_hdr_out  checksum, and doesn't care is it a tunneled packet or not. So he sets:


> Let's first sumarize what was the behavior before this patch. This is the
> description in csumonly code.
> 
> Receive a burst of packets, and for each packet:
>   - parse packet, and try to recognize a supported packet type (1)
>   - if it's not a supported packet type, don't touch the packet, else:
>   - modify the IPs in inner headers and in outer headers if any
>   - reprocess the checksum of all supported layers. This is done in SW
>     or HW, depending on testpmd command line configuration
>   - if TSO is enabled in testpmd command line, also flag the mbuf for TCP
>     segmentation offload (this implies HW TCP checksum) Then transmit packets on
> the output port.
> 
> (1) Supported packets are:
>    Ether / (vlan) / IP|IP6 / UDP|TCP|SCTP .
>    Ether / (vlan) / outer IP|IP6 / outer UDP / VxLAN / Ether / IP|IP6 /
>            UDP|TCP|SCTP
> 
> The testpmd command line for this forward engine sets the flags
> TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_* in ports[tx_port].tx_ol_flags. They control wether a
> checksum must be calculated in software or in hardware. The IP, UDP, TCP and
> SCTP flags always concern the inner layer.  The VxLAN flag concerns the outer IP
> (if packet is recognized as a vxlan packet).
> 
>  From this description, it is easy to deduct this table:
> 
> Packet type 1:
>   Ether / (vlan) / IP|IP6 / UDP|TCP|SCTP .
> 
> Packet type 2
>    Ether / (vlan) / outer IP|IP6 / outer UDP / VxLAN / Ether / IP|IP6 /
>        UDP|TCP|SCTP
> 
> +---------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
> |test-pmd config \ packets  |Packet type 1      |Packet type 2      |
> +---------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
> |whatever the flags         |IP addresses       |inner and outer IP |
> |                           |incremented        |addresses          |
> |                           |                   |incremented        |
> +---------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
> |IP = sw                    |IP cksum is sw     |inner IP cksum is  |
> |                           |                   |sw                 |
> +---------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
> |IP = hw                    |IP cksum is hw     |inner IP cksum is  |
> |                           |(using lX_len)     |hw (using lX_len)  |
> +---------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
> |UDP or TCP or SCTP = sw    |L4 cksum is sw     |inner L4 cksum is  |
> |                           |                   |sw                 |
> +---------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
> |UDP or TCP or SCTP = hw    |L4 cksum is hw     |inner L4 cksum is  |
> |                           |(using lX_len)     |hw (using lX_len)  |
> +---------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
> |VxLAN = sw                 |N/A                |outer IP cksum is  |
> |                           |                   |sw, outer UDP cksum|
> |                           |                   |is sw              |
> +---------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
> |VxLAN = hw                 |N/A                |outer IP cksum is  |
> |                           |                   |hw (using          |
> |                           |                   |outer_lX_len),     |
> |                           |                   |outer UDP cksum is |
> |                           |                   |sw (no hw support) |
> +---------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
> 
> 
> It could be really helpful to have a table like this for what you are implementing,
> because I feel there are too many options. Here is an example of what could be
> done here (if options are not independent like before, it can be presented in a
> different way in the first column).
> 

> Another thing: you don't describe what you want to be able to do:
> 
> 1/ packet type 1: compute L3 and/or L4 checksum using lX_len 2/ packet type 2:
> compute inner L3 and/or L4 checksum using lX_len 3/ packet type 2: compute
> outer L3 and/or L4 checksum using lX_len 4/ packet type 2: compute inner L3
> and/or L4 checksum using lX_len
>     and outer L3 and/or L4 checksum using outer_lX_len

These details have already covered in http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009213.html,
if the patch set is applied, and we aslo have to update the some documents.


> why not having the 2 following commands:
>

I have talked about why we need the current 3 commands in another mail loop, let me explain it here again.
 
First. We  still think we need some command to enable/disable tunneling  support in testpmd, that's why the command 1 is needed.

1. tx_checksum set tunnel (hw|sw|none) (port-id) command

2. tx_cksum set (outer-ip)  (hw|sw) (port_id)

3. tx_cksum set (ip|l4) (hw|sw) (port_id)

Secondly, in most of cases,   user application use non-tunneling packet, so he just care how to use 3, don't need to care 1 and 2, don't you think  it becomes simpler?  
If we mix tunneling packet command and non-tunneling packet together, and the commands will become more complicated and  not easy to understand.


> tx_checksum set
> (ip|udp|tcp|sctp|outer-ip|outer-udp|outer-tcp|outer-sctp) <portid>

As far as I know, so far,  there is no a type of tunneling packet with outer-tcp and outer-sctp.

>    select if we use hw or sw calculation for each header type
> 
> tx_checksum tunnel (inner|outer|both)
> 
>    when a tunnel packet is received in csum only, control wether
>    we want to process inner, outer or both headers

This command can't meet/match our previous discussions and current implementation.  In terms of 'inner' option, which can't meet the two following cases.

B) User is aware that it is a tunneled 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 =  udp_hdr_len + vxlan_hdr_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->ol_flags |= PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL | 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 tunneled packet, but makes HW to treat it as ordinary (non-tunneled) 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;

> 
> The resulting table would be:
> 
> +------------------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
> |test-pmd \ packets|Packet type|Packet type 2                        |
> |                  |1          +-----------+-----------+-------------+
> |                  |           |tun = inner|tun = outer|tun = both   |
> |                  |           |           |           |             |
> |                  |           |           |           |             |
> +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
> |whatever the flags|IP         |inner IP   |outer IP   |inner and    |
> |                  |addresses  |addresses  |addresses  |outer IP     |
> |                  |incremented|incremented|incremented|addresses    |
> |                  |           |           |           |incremented  |
> +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
> |IP = sw           |IP cksum is|inner IP   |           |inner IP     |
> |                  |sw         |cksum is sw|           |cksum is sw  |
> |                  |           |           |           |             |
> +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
> |IP = hw           |IP cksum is|inner IP   |           |inner IP     |
> |                  |hw (using  |cksum is hw|           |cksum is hw  |
> |                  |lX_len)    |(using     |           |(using       |
> |                  |           |lX_len)    |           |lX_len)      |
> +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
> |UDP or TCP or SCTP|L4 cksum is|inner L4   |           |inner L4     |
> |= sw              |sw         |cksum is sw|           |cksum is sw  |
> |                  |           |           |           |             |
> +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
> |UDP or TCP or SCTP|L4 cksum is|inner L4   |           |inner L4     |
> |= hw              |hw (using  |cksum is hw|           |cksum is hw  |
> |                  |lX_len)    |(using     |           |(using       |
> |                  |           |lX_len)    |           |lX_len)      |
> +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
> |outer IP = sw     |N/A        |           |outer IP   |outer IP     |
> |                  |           |           |cksum is sw|cksum is sw  |
> |                  |           |           |           |             |
> +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
> |outer IP = hw     |N/A        |           |outer IP   |outer IP     |
> |                  |           |           |cksum is hw|cksum is hw  |
> |                  |           |           |(using     |(using       |
> |                  |           |           |lX_len)    |outer_lX_len)|
> |                  |           |           |           |             |
> +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
> |outer UDP or TCP  |N/A        |           |outer L4   |outer L4     |
> |or SCTP = sw      |           |           |cksum is sw|cksum is sw  |
> |                  |           |           |           |             |
> +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
> |outer UDP or TCP  |N/A        |           |outer L4   |outer L4     |
> |or SCTP = hw      |           |           |cksum is hw|cksum is hw  |
> |                  |           |           |(using     |(using       |
> |                  |           |           |lX_len)    |outer_lX_len,|
> |                  |           |           |           |knowing that |
> |                  |           |           |           |no hw support|
> |                  |           |           |           |it today)    |
> +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
> 
> > v2 change:
> >       redefine the 'none' behaviour for "tx_checksum set tunnel (hw|sw|none)
> (port-id)" command.
> > v3 change:
> >       typo correction in cmdline help
> >
> > Jijiang Liu (3):
> >    add outer IP offload capability in librte_ether.
> >    add outer IP checksum capability in i40e PMD
> >    testpmd command lines of the tx_checksum and csum forwarding rework
> >
> >   app/test-pmd/cmdline.c            |  201
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >   app/test-pmd/csumonly.c           |   35 ++++---
> >   app/test-pmd/testpmd.h            |    6 +-
> >   lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h     |    1 +
> >   lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_ethdev.c |    3 +-
> >   5 files changed, 218 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >
> 
> One more comment, which is not critical. I think the commit log would be more
> readable if the lines are truncated at 72 columns, like described here:
> http://tbaggery.com/2008/04/19/a-note-about-git-commit-messages.html
> 
> Regards,
> Olivier

  reply	other threads:[~2014-12-12  3:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-10  1:03 Jijiang Liu
2014-12-10  1:03 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] librte_ether:add outer IP offload capability flag Jijiang Liu
2014-12-11 10:33   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-10  1:03 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/3] i40e:support outer IPv4 checksum capability Jijiang Liu
2014-12-11 10:34   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-10  1:03 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/3] app/testpmd:change tx_checksum command and csum forwarding engine Jijiang Liu
2014-12-11 10:52   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-12  4:06     ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-12-11 10:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum " Olivier MATZ
2014-12-12  3:48   ` Liu, Jijiang [this message]
2014-12-12 16:33     ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-07  2:03       ` Liu, Jijiang
2015-01-07  9:59         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-07 11:39           ` Liu, Jijiang
2015-01-07 12:07             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-08  8:51               ` Liu, Jijiang
2015-01-08 10:54                 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-09 10:45                   ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-12  3:41                     ` Liu, Jijiang
2015-01-12 11:43                       ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-13  3:04                         ` Liu, Jijiang
2015-01-13  9:55                           ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-14  3:01                             ` Liu, Jijiang
2015-01-15 13:31                               ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-16 17:27                                 ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-19 13:04                                   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-19 14:38                                     ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-20  1:12                                       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-20 12:39                                         ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-20 15:18                                           ` Thomas Monjalon
2015-01-20 17:10                                             ` Stephen Hemminger
2015-01-20 17:23                                           ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-20 18:15                                             ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-21  3:12                                               ` Liu, Jijiang
2015-01-21 15:25                                                 ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-21 16:28                                                   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-21 17:13                                                     ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-26  4:13                                                   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-26  6:02                                                     ` Liu, Jijiang
2015-01-26 14:07                                                       ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-26 14:15                                                         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-27  8:34                                                           ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-27 15:26                                                             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-21 19:44                                                 ` Stephen Hemminger
2015-01-22  1:40                                                   ` Liu, Jijiang
2015-01-21  8:01                                               ` Liu, Jijiang
2015-01-21  9:10                                                 ` Olivier MATZ
2015-01-21 11:52                                                   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-01-07 13:06 ` Qiu, Michael

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=1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA1B70@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=jijiang.liu@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --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

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git