DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
	"Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
	"Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
	"Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>,
	"Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
	"Kovacevic, Marko" <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
	Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"shahafs@mellanox.com" <shahafs@mellanox.com>,
	"didier.pallard@6wind.com" <didier.pallard@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP checksum definition
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 15:03:49 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2286504.krVn7HG0xW@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181008122509.GA5158@jerin>

08/10/2018 14:25, Jerin Jacob:
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > On 10/8/2018 12:55 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > >> On 10/8/2018 10:37 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > >>> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > >>>> 08/10/2018 10:24, Jerin Jacob:
> > >>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > >>>>>> On 10/6/2018 1:18 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > >>>>>>> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> > >>>>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > >>>>>>>>> However, we should re-visit the flag PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Do we need to block this patch due to the exiting PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD
> > >>>>>>>> definition?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I already added the author of the PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD flag and ethdev and mbuf
> > >>>>>>>> maintainers in this list. So what else I need make forward progress
> > >>>>>>>> on this patch?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I think, the definition of PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD based on HW capability. It
> > >>>>>>>> is safe to assume that ALL HW can support CKSUM BAD if the feature is
> > >>>>>>>> available and hence it is more portable.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Yes, as I remember PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD is based on DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Switching to two bit won't reduce the portability, HW supports only reporting
> > >>>>>> CKSUM_BAD can set BAD || UNKNOWN.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> UNKNOWN is not a bit. It is represented as 0. It spec has 2 bit, then
> > >>>>> driver need to report GOOD as well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Same applies for PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM as well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> And I think patch is not blocked by PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD, it can be changed
> > >>>>>> separately, for this patch question is can we represent PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_* with
> > >>>>>> two bits, to have BAD/GOOD/UNKNOWN?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yes, exact.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD must be left aside.
> > >>>> We should just avoid taking it as a reference.
> > >>>> And we can reconsider its definition later.
> > >>>
> > >>> OK.
> > >>>
> > >>> IMO, Using 2 bit scheme for tunneled checksum has following performance
> > >>> issue from driver side.
> > >>>
> > >>> Driver need to mark the packet as GOOD. All the HW can support
> > >>> detection of BAD. That not necessary mean GOOD in case of tunnel packet,
> > >>> so driver has to detect the packet is tunneled and packet is not BAD
> > >>> then mark GOOD.
> > >>
> > >> Yes UNKNOWN is not a bit, but a state, why don't use it? Why driver has to check
> > >> it is GOOD?
> > >
> > > The application is going to check is it GOOD or not. Not the driver,
> > > Right? My concern was, If application starts dropping the packet instead checking the BAD, if
> > > it checks == !GOOD.
> > 
> > Got it, but when 2 bits state introduced, app should check if check == BAD for
> > drop decision, because it is not GOOD || BAD anymore.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> > 
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 0x0 => UNKNOWN
> > >> 0x1 => BAD
> > >> 0x2 => GOOD
> > >> 0x3 => ? (invalid perhaps)
> > >>
> > >> HW that supports detecting good packets can set BAD || GOOD state, HW can detect
> > >> only BAD packet can set BAD || UNKNOWN state.
> > >>
> > >> If BAD is not set, there is an ambiguity of state, lets clarify it in lower
> > >> level, if it is UNKNOWN, let application know it is UNKNOWN.
> > >
> > > OK.
> > >
> > > How about the following then?
> > >
> > > /**
> > >  * Mask of bits used to determine the status of outer RX L4 checksum.
> > >  * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_UNKNOWN: no information about the outer RX L4 checksum
> > >  * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_BAD: the outer L4 checksum in the packet is wrong
> > >  * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_GOOD: the outer L4 checksum in the packet is valid
> > >  * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_INVALID: invalid outer L4 checksum state.
> > >  *
> > >  * The detection of PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_GOOD shall be based on the given
> > >  * HW capability, At minimum, the PMD should support
> > >  * PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_UNKNOWN  and PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_BAD states
> > >  * if the offload is available.
> > >  */
> > > #define PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_MASK   ((1ULL << 21) | (1ULL << 22))
> > >
> > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_UNKNOWN 0
> > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD     (1ULL << 21)
> > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD    (1ULL << 22)
> > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_INVALID ((1ULL << 21) | (1ULL << 22))
> > 
> > Looks good to me.
> 
> If there is no objection with above flag definition, I will send the v3 with that.

Just one objection about the name.
Why naming it EL4 and commenting as outer L4?
I think we should choose between "external" and "outer".
Convention seems to be choosing "outer" word.
So I suggest PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_*.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-08 13:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-13 13:47 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] ethdev: add SCTP Rx checksum offload support Jerin Jacob
2018-09-13 13:47 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] mbuf: fix Tx offload mask Jerin Jacob
2018-10-01 13:45   ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-01 15:53     ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-01 16:13       ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-09-13 13:47 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer L4 checksum definitions Jerin Jacob
2018-09-13 17:24   ` Shahaf Shuler
2018-09-14  3:05     ` Jerin Jacob
2018-09-16  5:53       ` Shahaf Shuler
2018-09-16  9:32         ` Jerin Jacob
2018-09-13 13:47 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] ethdev: add Tx " Jerin Jacob
2018-10-01 13:45   ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-02  9:52     ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-01 13:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] ethdev: add SCTP Rx checksum offload support Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-01 13:46 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-01 15:59   ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-01 16:11     ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-02  8:53       ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-02  9:13     ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-02 10:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] " Jerin Jacob
2018-10-02 10:51   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] mbuf: fix Tx offload mask Jerin Jacob
2018-10-04  2:31     ` Hu, Jiayu
2018-10-04 16:05       ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-03 18:52   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] ethdev: add SCTP Rx checksum offload support Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-02 19:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP checksum definition Jerin Jacob
2018-10-02 19:24   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] ethdev: add Tx " Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03  7:41     ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-03  7:58       ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03  8:02         ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-03  8:36           ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-03 10:52     ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-02 19:24   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] app/testpmd: add outer UDP HW checksum support Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03 13:23     ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-02 19:24   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] app/testpmd: collect bad outer L4 checksum for csum engine Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03  8:29     ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-03  7:34   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP checksum definition Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-03  7:57     ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03  8:35       ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-03  8:36         ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-03 17:12       ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03 18:00         ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-03 18:14           ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03 19:47             ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-03 20:08               ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-04  5:59               ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-05 19:48                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-05 20:04                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-05 22:44                   ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-06  8:15                     ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-06 12:18                       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-10-08  8:12                         ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-08  8:24                           ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-08  9:04                             ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-08  9:37                               ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-08 10:53                                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-08 11:55                                   ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-08 12:13                                     ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-08 12:25                                       ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-08 13:03                                         ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2018-10-08 13:08                                           ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03  8:53   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-10-03  8:59     ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03  9:17       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-10-03  9:22         ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03 10:16           ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-10-03 11:15             ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03 10:51   ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-03 11:19     ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03 13:00       ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-03 18:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 " Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03 18:16   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] ethdev: add Tx " Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03 18:16   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] app/testpmd: add outer UDP HW checksum support Jerin Jacob
2018-10-03 18:16   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] app/testpmd: collect bad outer L4 checksum for csum engine Jerin Jacob
2018-10-04 13:45     ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-04 14:16       ` Jerin Jacob
2018-10-04 15:06         ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-08 16:09   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP checksum definition Jerin Jacob
2018-10-08 16:09     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/4] ethdev: add Tx " Jerin Jacob
2018-10-09 10:06       ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-08 16:09     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/4] app/testpmd: add outer UDP HW checksum support Jerin Jacob
2018-10-08 16:09     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/4] app/testpmd: collect bad outer L4 checksum for csum engine Jerin Jacob
2018-10-09 10:06     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP checksum definition Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-09 14:18     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 " Jerin Jacob
2018-10-09 14:18       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/4] ethdev: add Tx " Jerin Jacob
2018-10-09 14:18       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/4] app/testpmd: add outer UDP HW checksum support Jerin Jacob
2018-10-09 14:18       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/4] app/testpmd: collect bad outer L4 checksum for csum engine Jerin Jacob
2018-10-09 16:46       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP checksum definition Ferruh Yigit

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=2286504.krVn7HG0xW@xps \
    --to=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=didier.pallard@6wind.com \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=marko.kovacevic@intel.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=shahafs@mellanox.com \
    --cc=wenzhuo.lu@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).