From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE1568CD for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 23:18:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x10so4665617pdj.1 for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QV6igiDE1AIh5YmsDfF5uOug27D4KyZyvVf2hUZHhZY=; b=eah710mOrAqJIDnPBkA557eaWeoggz3ZaBxku7eWWQxTsrgw4kyBfDyvwOARTaikD1 hb2YloQfe5y8g01RrzKMfo+8TLVN6hyLoWn9YhjfSt+bGZKLUnfMfy8E2+9cfHNVoMm6 nyUC+DvFLv+7EZaTiozjT1t7Usn+/TmUd8l3D7Lw96DEO2h3FdPqZJD2+lMhZqIogYsB zGWaQ4df6dp7RqSVp+eCWlQa/DS/iFEaSn0ob9hzSbCCsyNNKkAZzCi5OWsfeXscp2id FZX2z9hanCWcuZfVoCm6ZgNArLFs3sChNyXdXYq9rxWcnhHrDL/5XJI9OAzQTPfKx74M l3xg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkvrAoKAH09Tfrewb8baOmoTrlvJViC6+to6muvfTOr133l6OTNBP9BEw10gIEOmxSmQMa X-Received: by 10.68.197.104 with SMTP id it8mr16611722pbc.17.1380921546210; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net (static-50-53-83-51.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.53.83.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wp8sm16805056pbc.26.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 14:19:02 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: jigsaw Message-ID: <20131004141902.710a3f8d@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> In-Reply-To: References: <1380906413-3406-1-git-send-email-jigsaw@gmail.com> <20131004104030.206356dd@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20131004112302.50693f04@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <1FD9B82B8BF2CF418D9A1000154491D973F58EE2@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Request for comments on ixgbe TSO support X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 21:18:23 -0000 On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 22:10:33 +0300 jigsaw wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Thanks for showing a bigger picture. > > GSO is quite big implementation, that I think it won't be easily > ported to DPDK. The mbuf needs to be equipped with many fields from > skb to be able to deal with GSO. > Do you have the plan to port GSO to DPDK, or you would like to keep > GSO in scope of virtio? > > Regarding checksum flags, actually I was also thinking of extending > ol_flags but then I gave it up coz I was worried about the size of > mbuf. > My current patch has to push some work to user, due to the fact that > mbuf delivers too few info (such as L2 and L3 protocol details). > > Besides, as you mentioned, the ixgbe driver doesn't leverage the > hardware receive checksum offloading at all. And if this is to be > supported, the checksum flag need further extension. > (On the other hand, TSO doesn't care about receive checksum offloading). > Again, do you have plans to extend cksum flags so that virio feels > more comfortable with DPDK? > > Hi Venky, > > I can either make the commit now as is, or wait till the cksum flags > extension is in place. If Stephen (or somebody else) has the plan for > better support for cksum offloading or GSO, it is perhaps better to > implement TSO on top of that. > > BTW, I have another small question. Current TSO patch offloads the > TCP/IP pseudo cksum work to user. Do you think DPDK could provide some > utility functions for TCP/IPv4/IPv6 pseudo cksum calculation and > updating? > > thx & > rgds, > -Qinglai I want to get Tx checksum offload in virtio working first. Just looking ahead to Rx.