From: "Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
'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: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 08:51:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA7CC5@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213D34AE@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 8:07 PM
> To: Liu, Jijiang; 'Olivier MATZ'
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and
> csum forwarding engine
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Liu, Jijiang
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:39 AM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; 'Olivier MATZ'
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and
> > csum forwarding engine
> >
> > Hi Konstantin,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 5:59 PM
> > > To: Liu, Jijiang; 'Olivier MATZ'
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command
> > > and csum forwarding engine
> > >
> > > Hi Frank,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Liu, Jijiang
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 2:04 AM
> > > > To: 'Olivier MATZ'
> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command
> > > > and csum forwarding engine
> > > >
> > > > Hi Olivier,
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:33 AM
> > > > > To: Liu, Jijiang
> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum
> > > > > command and csum forwarding engine
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/12/2014 04:48 AM, Liu, Jijiang wrote:
> > > > > > The 'hw/sw' option is used to set/clear the flag of enabling
> > > > > > TX tunneling packet
> > > > > checksum hardware offload in testpmd application.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not clear at all.
> > > > > In your command, there is (hw|sw|none).
> > > > > Are you talking about inner or outer?
> > > > > Is this command useful for any kind of packet?
> > > > > How does it combine with "tx_checksum set outer-ip (hw|sw)"?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I rethink these TX checksum commands in this patch set and agree
> > > > with you that we should make some changes for having clear meaning for
> them.
> > > >
> > > > There are 3 commands in patch set as follows, 1. tx_checksum set
> > > > tunnel (hw|sw|none) (port-id)
> > > >
> > > > Now I also think the command 1 may confuse user, they probably
> > > > don't understand why we need 'hw' or 'sw' option and when to use
> > > > the two option, so I will replace the command with 'tx_checksum
> > > > set hw-tunnel-mode
> > > (on|off) (port-id)' command.
> > >
> > > I am a bit confused here, could you explain what would be a
> > > behaviour for 'on' and 'off'?
> > > Konstantin
> >
> > I have explained the behaviour for 'on' and'off' below,
> >
> > The command 'tx_checksum set hw-tunnel-mode (on|off) (port-id)' is
> > used to set/clear TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_TUNNEL_CKSUM flag.
> >
> > Actually, the PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT offload flag will be set if the
> > testpmd flag is set, which means to tell HW treat that transmit
> > packet as a tunneling packet to do checksum offload When 'on' is set, which is
> able to meet Method B.1 and method C.
> >
> > When 'off' is set, the TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_TUNNEL_CKSUM is not needed
> > to set, so the PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT offload flag is not needed to
> > set, then HW treat that transmit packet as a non-tunneling packet. It is able to
> meet Method B.2.
> >
> > Is the explanation not clear?
>
> Ok, and how I can set method A (testpmd treat all packets as non-tunnelling and
> never look beyond outer L4 header) then?
> Konstantin
> > > > As to case A, I think it is not mandatory to cover it in csum fwd
> > > > engine for tunneling packet.
If you think the case A is essential, and it must be covered in csum fwd, then we can add a command:
tx_checksum set sw-tunnel-mode (on|off) (port-id)
if the 'off' is set , csum fwd engine don't check if that packet is a tunneling packet and treat all packets as non-tunneling and never look beyond outer L4 header.
if the 'on' is set, csum fwd engine will check if that packet is a tunneling packet.
And we are able to test all of cases in http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009213.html
Test case A:
tx_checksum set sw-tunnel-mode off
tx_checksum set hw-tunnel-mode off
tx_checksum set ip hw
test case B.1:
tx_checksum set sw-tunnel-mode on
tx_checksum set hw-tunnel-mode on
tx_checksum set ip hw
tx_checksum set tcp hw
test case B.2:
tx_checksum set sw-tunnel-mode on
tx_checksum set hw-tunnel-mode off
tx_checksum set ip hw
test case C:
tx_checksum set sw-tunnel-mode on
tx_checksum set hw-tunnel-mode on
tx_checksum set outer-ip hw
tx_checksum set ip hw
tx_checksum set tcp hw
In addition, the reason of discarding ' tx_checksum set tunnel (hw|sw|none) (port-id)' command is that user probably confuse the following case.
tx_checksum set tunnel sw
tx_checksum set ip hw
In fact, we are still using hardware TX checksum offload in this case, but the command " tx_checksum set tunnel sw" seems tell user that software compute the checksum.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. tx_checksum set outer-ip (hw|sw) (port-id) 3. tx_checksum set
> > > > (ip|udp|tcp|sctp) (hw|sw) (port-id)
> > > >
> > > > The command 2 will be merged into command 3, the new command is '
> > > > tx_checksum set (outer-ip|ip|udp|tcp|sctp) (hw|sw) (port- id)'.
> > > >
> > > > These most of the cases in
> > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009213.html will be
> > > > covered by using the two commands
> > > >
> > > > The command 'tx_checksum set hw-tunnel-mode (on|off) (port-id)'
> > > > is used to set/clear TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_TUNNEL_CKSUM flag.
> > > > Actually, the PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT offload flag will be set if
> > > > the testpmd flag is set, which tell driver/HW treat that transmit
> > > > packet as a
> > > tunneling packet.
> > > >
> > > > When 'on' is set, which is able to meet Method B.1 and method C.
> > > >
> > > > When 'off' is set, the TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_TUNNEL_CKSUM is not
> > > > needed to set, so the PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT offload flag is not
> > > > needed to set, then
> > > HW treat that transmit packet as a non-tunneling packet. It is able
> > > to meet Method B.2.
> > > >
> > > > As to case A, I think it is not mandatory to cover it in csum fwd
> > > > engine for
> > > tunneling packet.
> > > >
> > > > Is the above description clear for you?
> > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Olivier
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-08 8:51 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
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 [this message]
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=1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA7CC5@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=jijiang.liu@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--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
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).