DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
	Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:03:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC7F9@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2324692.x6b6svf072@xps13>

Hi Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 10:45 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Olivier MATZ
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Liu, Jijiang
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 2014-12-04 10:23, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > From: Liu, Jijiang
> > > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > > > On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > > >> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
> > > > >> appropriate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, didn't get you here.
> > > > > Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and
> > > > > PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?
> > > >
> > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > >> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may have
> > > > >> misunderstood:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html
> > > > >
> > > > > In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make  PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM,
> > > > PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
> > > > > Something like:
> > > > > #define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
> > > > > #define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
> > > > > #define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> > > > > Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
> > > > >
> > > > > switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
> > > > >      case TX_IPV4:
> > > > >         ...
> > > > >         break;
> > > > >      case TX_IPV6:
> > > > >         ...
> > > > >         break;
> > > > >      case TX_IP_CKSUM:
> > > > >         ...
> > > > >         break;
> > > > > }"
> > > > >
> > > > > As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
> > > > > I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.
> > > >
> > > > ok, so we are back between:
> > > >
> > > > 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> > > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> > > > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> > > >
> > > > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > 2/
> > > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> > > > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> > > >
> > > > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an opinion?
> > >
> > > Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP version/type,
> > >
> > > 1. For IPv6
> > > IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4,  so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6
> packet,
> > > here we don't talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless. Right?
> > >
> > > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */         ------ IP type: v6;  HW checksum: meaningless
> > >
> > > 2. For IPv4,
> > > My patch:
> > >
> > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */--------------------------IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */ ----------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: No
> > >
> > > You want:
> > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */-------------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4*/ ------------------------  IP type: v4; HW checksum: yes or no?
> > >                                                                                                        driver/HW don't know, just know this is packet with IPv4 header.
> > >                                                                                                        HW checksum: meaningless??
> >
> > Yep, that's why I also don't like that suggestion: PKT_TX_IPV4 itself doesn't contain all information.
> > PMD will have to check PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  anyway.
> 
> I prefer solution 2 because a flag should bring only 1 information.

Why is that? For example in mbuf we already have a flag that brings 2 things:
PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */

If it would be possible to compress 10 meanings into 1 bit, I would happily do that.
Unfortunately, it is rarely possible :)

> It's simply saner and could fit to more situations in the future.

Could you give an example of such situation?
I personally couldn't come up with the case where #2 would have any real advantage. 
Konstantin

> 
> --
> Thomas

  reply	other threads:[~2014-12-04 11:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-02 15:06 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/3] i40e VXLAN TX checksum rework Jijiang Liu
2014-12-02 15:06 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] mbuf:redefine three TX ol_flags Jijiang Liu
2014-12-03 11:35   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-02 15:06 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM Jijiang Liu
2014-12-03 11:41   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-03 12:59     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-03 14:41       ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-04  2:08         ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-12-04 10:23           ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 10:45             ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-12-04 11:03               ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2014-12-04 13:51                 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-04 22:56                   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-05  4:17                     ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-12-04  6:52         ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-04  7:52           ` Liu, Jijiang
2014-12-04 10:19           ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 13:47             ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-04 21:42               ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-05  1:15             ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-05 11:11   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-02 15:06 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] mbuf:replace the inner_l2_len and the inner_l3_len fields Jijiang Liu
2014-12-03 11:45   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-05 11:12   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-02 15:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/3] i40e VXLAN TX checksum rework Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-05 16:07   ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-12-07 11:46     ` Ananyev, Konstantin

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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC7F9@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com \
    --to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@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).