From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, Yong Wang <yongwang@vmware.com>, "Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com> Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 10/10] app/testpmd:test VxLAN Tx checksum offload Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:39:28 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213A40EB@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <54635B2B.5040603@6wind.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:06 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Yong Wang; Liu, Jijiang > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 10/10] app/testpmd:test VxLAN Tx checksum offload > > Hi Konstantin, > > On 11/12/2014 10:55 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > >> From an API perspective, it looks a bit more complex to have to call > >> dev_prep_tx() before sending the packets if they have been flagged > >> for offload processing. But I admit I have no other argument. I'll be > >> happy to have more comments from other people on the list. > >> > >> I'm sending a first version of the patchset now as it's ready, it does > >> not take in account this comment, but I'm open to add it in a v2 if > >> there is a consensus on this. > >> > >> Now, knowing that: > >> - adding dev_prep_tx() will also concern hw checksum (TCP L4 checksum > >> already requires to set the TCP pseudo header checksum), so adding > >> this will change the API of an existing feature > >> - TSO is a new feature expected for 1.8 (which should be out soon) > >> > >> Do you think we need to include this for 1.8 or can we postpone your > >> proposition for after the 1.8 release? > > > > I'd say it would be good to have it done together with TSO feature. > > About changing API: I think existing applications shouldn't be affected. > > For existing PMDs/TX offloads we don't change any rules what need to be filled by the app. > > We just add a new function that can do that for user. > > If the app fills required manually (as all apps have to do now) it would keep working as expected. > > I agree, this proposition could work without changing the current > applications. > > > If you feel like it is too much work for 1.8 timeframe - > > can we at least move fix_tcp_phdr_cksum() out of TX PMD as a temporary measure? > > Let say create a function get_ipv4_udptcp_checksum(struct rte_mbuf *m) (in librte_net ?). > > It will calculate PSD checksum for both TSO and non-TSO case based on given mbuf flags/fields. > > Then we can update testpmd/csumonly.c to use it. > > I'm not sure having get_ipv4_udptcp_checksum() in librte_net would > help. The value we have to set in the TCP checksum field depends on the > PMD (altought only ixgbe is supported now). So, it would require > another parameter <portid> and a new PMD eth_ops... which looks very > similar to dev_prep_tx() (except that dev_prep_tx() can be bulked). > I think a stack will not be able to call get_udptcp_checksum(m ,port) > because it does not know the physical port at the time the packet is > built. Moreover, calling a function through a pointer is more efficient > when bulked. So I think the dev_prep_tx() you initially describe is > a better answer to the problem. Yes I understand that it might not be applicable for non-Intel NICs. Though I thought it is ok as a temporary measure as right now we support these offloads for Intel NICs only. Basically my thought was what you proposed as option 3 below. Why common function in librte_net? So people don't need to write their own each time. Plus as I remember all 3 Intel NIC types (ixgbe/igb/i40e) we support have similar requirements for what need to be set/calculated for these TX offloads. So my thought was that having a common function might help to avoid code duplication in future, If/when will implement dev_prep_tx(). > > I don't know what is the exact timeframe for 1.8, maybe Thomas can help > on this? Depending on it, we have several options: > > - implement dev_prep_tx() for 1.8 in the TSO series: this implies that > the community agrees on this new API. We need to check that it will > be faster in a pipeline model (I think this is obvious) but also that > it does not penalize the run-to-completion model: introducing another > function dev_prep_tx() can result in duplicated tests in the driver > (ex: test the offload flag values). > > - postpone dev_prep_tx() or similar to next version and push the current > TSO patchset (including the comments done on the list). It does not > modify the current offload API, it provides the TSO feature on ixgbe > based on a similar API concept (set the TCP phdr cksum). The drawback > is a potential performance loss when using a pipeline model. > > - another option that you may prefer is to bind the API behavior to > ixgbe (for 1.8): we can ask the application to set the pseudo-header > checksum without the IP len when doing TSO, as required by the ixgbe > driver. Then, for next release, we can think about dev_prep_tx(). The > drawback of this solution is that we may go back on this choice if the > dev_prep_tx() approach is not validated by the community. My vote would be for option 3 then. Thanks Konstantin > > > Regards, > Olivier
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-12 14:29 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-10-27 2:13 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 00/10] Support VxLAN on Fortville Jijiang Liu 2014-10-27 2:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 01/10] librte_mbuf:the rte_mbuf structure changes Jijiang Liu 2014-10-27 2:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 02/10] librte_ether:add the basic data structures of VxLAN Jijiang Liu 2014-10-27 2:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 03/10] librte_ether:add VxLAN packet identification API Jijiang Liu 2014-10-27 2:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 04/10] i40e:support VxLAN packet identification in i40e Jijiang Liu 2014-10-27 2:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 05/10] app/test-pmd:test VxLAN packet identification Jijiang Liu 2014-10-27 2:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 06/10] librte_ether:add data structures of VxLAN filter Jijiang Liu 2014-10-27 2:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 07/10] i40e:implement the API of VxLAN filter in librte_pmd_i40e Jijiang Liu 2014-10-27 2:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 08/10] app/testpmd:test VxLAN packet filter Jijiang Liu 2014-10-27 2:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 09/10] i40e:support VxLAN Tx checksum offload Jijiang Liu 2014-10-27 2:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 10/10] app/testpmd:test " Jijiang Liu 2014-11-04 8:19 ` Olivier MATZ 2014-11-05 6:02 ` Liu, Jijiang 2014-11-05 10:28 ` Olivier MATZ 2014-11-06 11:24 ` Liu, Jijiang 2014-11-06 13:08 ` Olivier MATZ 2014-11-06 14:27 ` Liu, Jijiang 2014-11-07 0:43 ` Yong Wang 2014-11-07 17:16 ` Olivier MATZ 2014-11-10 11:39 ` Ananyev, Konstantin 2014-11-10 15:57 ` Olivier MATZ 2014-11-12 9:55 ` Ananyev, Konstantin 2014-11-12 13:05 ` Olivier MATZ 2014-11-12 13:40 ` Thomas Monjalon 2014-11-12 23:14 ` Ananyev, Konstantin 2014-11-12 14:39 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message] 2014-11-12 14:56 ` Olivier MATZ [not found] ` <D0868B54.24DBB%yongwang@vmware.com> 2014-11-11 0:07 ` [dpdk-dev] FW: " Yong Wang 2014-11-10 6:03 ` [dpdk-dev] " Liu, Jijiang 2014-11-10 16:17 ` Olivier MATZ [not found] ` <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01D8F7A7@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> 2014-11-12 17:26 ` Thomas Monjalon 2014-11-13 5:35 ` Liu, Jijiang 2014-11-13 5:39 ` Liu, Jijiang 2014-11-13 6:51 ` Liu, Jijiang 2014-11-13 9:10 ` Thomas Monjalon 2014-11-14 8:15 ` Liu, Jijiang 2014-11-14 9:09 ` Olivier MATZ 2014-11-17 6:52 ` Liu, Jijiang 2014-11-17 11:21 ` Olivier MATZ 2014-11-20 7:28 ` Liu, Jijiang 2014-11-20 16:36 ` Olivier MATZ 2014-11-21 5:40 ` Liu, Jijiang 2014-10-27 2:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 00/10] Support VxLAN on Fortville Liu, Yong 2014-10-27 2:41 ` Zhang, Helin 2014-10-27 13:46 ` Thomas Monjalon 2014-10-27 14:34 ` Liu, Jijiang 2014-10-27 15:15 ` 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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213A40EB@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com \ --to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \ --cc=dev@dpdk.org \ --cc=jijiang.liu@intel.com \ --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \ --cc=yongwang@vmware.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