From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Cc: Tomasz Kulasek <tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: move headers not fragmented check to checksum
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:09:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190329130949.tjjo2e5onssvoru4@platinum> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190329130949.3gGch0FuOEzkCKvjHaw76d45uQZe-TO1nd_NQQJGCJg@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9483be25-fc2b-9d0e-81d2-24295d68a07f@solarflare.com>
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 08:04:31PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> Ping? (I have a number of net/sfc patches which heavily depend on this
> one and must not be applied without this one)
>
> Andrew.
>
> On 2/19/19 9:30 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> > rte_validate_tx_offload() is used in Tx prepare callbacks
> > (RTE_LIBRTE_ETHDEV_DEBUG only) to check Tx offloads consistency.
> > Requirement that packet headers should not be fragmented is not
> > documented and unclear where it comes from except
> > rte_net_intel_cksum_prepare() functions which relies on it.
> >
> > It could be NIC vendor specific driver or hardware limitation, but,
> > if so, it should be documented and checked in corresponding Tx
> > prepare callbacks.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
> > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > ---
> > Looks good to me, though extra-testing would be needed.
> > Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> >
> > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 12 ------------
> > lib/librte_net/rte_net.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > index d961cca..73daa81 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > @@ -2257,23 +2257,11 @@ static inline int rte_pktmbuf_chain(struct rte_mbuf *head, struct rte_mbuf *tail
> > rte_validate_tx_offload(const struct rte_mbuf *m)
> > {
> > uint64_t ol_flags = m->ol_flags;
> > - uint64_t inner_l3_offset = m->l2_len;
> > /* Does packet set any of available offloads? */
> > if (!(ol_flags & PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK))
> > return 0;
> > - if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM)
> > - /* NB: elaborating the addition like this instead of using
> > - * += gives the result uint64_t type instead of int,
> > - * avoiding compiler warnings on gcc 8.1 at least */
> > - inner_l3_offset = inner_l3_offset + m->outer_l2_len +
> > - m->outer_l3_len;
> > -
> > - /* Headers are fragmented */
> > - if (rte_pktmbuf_data_len(m) < inner_l3_offset + m->l3_len + m->l4_len)
> > - return -ENOTSUP;
> > -
> > /* IP checksum can be counted only for IPv4 packet */
> > if ((ol_flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) && (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV6))
> > return -EINVAL;
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h b/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h
> > index e59760a..bd75aea 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h
> > @@ -118,10 +118,27 @@ uint32_t rte_net_get_ptype(const struct rte_mbuf *m,
> > struct udp_hdr *udp_hdr;
> > uint64_t inner_l3_offset = m->l2_len;
> > + /*
> > + * Does packet set any of available offloads?
> > + * Mainly it is required to avoid fragmented headers check if
> > + * no offloads are requested.
> > + */
> > + if (!(ol_flags & PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > if ((ol_flags & PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM) ||
> > (ol_flags & PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6))
> > inner_l3_offset += m->outer_l2_len + m->outer_l3_len;
> > + /*
> > + * Check if headers are fragmented.
> > + * The check could be less strict depending on which offloads are
> > + * requested and headers to be used, but let's keep it simple.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(rte_pktmbuf_data_len(m) <
> > + inner_l3_offset + m->l3_len + m->l4_len))
> > + return -ENOTSUP;
> > +
> > if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {
> > ipv4_hdr = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(m, struct ipv4_hdr *,
> > inner_l3_offset);
>
To summarize, the previous code was in a generic part, only enabled if
RTE_LIBRTE_ETHDEV_DEBUG is set, and it is moved in an intel-specific part,
but always enabled. Am I correct?
So it may have a performance impact on intel NICs. Shouldn't it be under
a debug option?
Regards,
Olivier
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-29 13:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-29 8:49 [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] " Andrew Rybchenko
2019-02-13 9:50 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-02-13 14:48 ` Wiles, Keith
2019-02-13 23:27 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-02-19 6:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-28 17:04 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-28 17:04 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-29 13:09 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2019-03-29 13:09 ` Olivier Matz
2019-03-29 13:30 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-29 13:30 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-29 13:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-29 13:42 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-29 14:18 ` Olivier Matz
2019-03-29 14:18 ` Olivier Matz
2019-04-02 14:48 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-04-02 14:48 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=20190329130949.tjjo2e5onssvoru4@platinum \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=tomaszx.kulasek@intel.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).