From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4535A42
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  7 Jan 2015 13:08:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21])
 by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Jan 2015 04:06:04 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,714,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="665749575"
Received: from irsmsx155.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.3])
 by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Jan 2015 04:08:29 -0800
Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.195]) by
 IRSMSX155.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.14.228]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001;
 Wed, 7 Jan 2015 12:07:25 +0000
From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: "Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com>, 'Olivier MATZ'
 <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and csum
 forwarding engine
Thread-Index: AQHQFSvOf5ZHcwOIQ0S6LPFf4KIhoZyLUqAAgADVrYCAJ+m7AIAAhGKAgAAcY4CAAAaCgA==
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 12:07:25 +0000
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213D34AE@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <1418173403-30202-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
 <54896F4A.4070601@6wind.com>
 <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA1B70@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <548B18C9.3020408@6wind.com>
 <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA7699@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213D337B@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA789E@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA789E@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and csum
 forwarding engine
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 12:08:32 -0000



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Jijiang
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:39 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; 'Olivier MATZ'
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and cs=
um forwarding engine
>=20
> Hi Konstantin,
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 5:59 PM
> > To: Liu, Jijiang; 'Olivier MATZ'
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and
> > csum forwarding engine
> >
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Liu, Jijiang
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 2:04 AM
> > > To: 'Olivier MATZ'
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command an=
d
> > > csum forwarding engine
> > >
> > > Hi Olivier,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:33 AM
> > > > To: Liu, Jijiang
> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command
> > > > and csum forwarding engine
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On 12/12/2014 04:48 AM, Liu, Jijiang wrote:
> > > > > The 'hw/sw' option  is used to set/clear the flag of enabling TX
> > > > > tunneling packet
> > > > checksum hardware offload in testpmd application.
> > > >
> > > > This is not clear at all.
> > > > In your command, there is (hw|sw|none).
> > > > Are you talking about inner or outer?
> > > > Is this command useful for any kind of packet?
> > > > How does it combine with "tx_checksum set outer-ip (hw|sw)"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I rethink these TX checksum commands in this patch set and agree with
> > > you that we should make some changes for having clear meaning for the=
m.
> > >
> > > There are  3 commands in patch set as follows, 1. tx_checksum set
> > > tunnel (hw|sw|none) (port-id)
> > >
> > > Now I also think the command 1 may confuse user, they probably don't
> > > understand  why we need 'hw' or 'sw' option and when  to use the two
> > > option, so I will replace the command with 'tx_checksum set hw-tunnel=
-mode
> > (on|off) (port-id)' command.
> >
> > I am a bit confused here, could you explain what would be a behaviour f=
or 'on' and
> > 'off'?
> > Konstantin
>=20
> I have explained the behaviour for 'on' and'off' below,
>=20
> The command 'tx_checksum set hw-tunnel-mode (on|off)  (port-id)' is
> used to set/clear  TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_TUNNEL_CKSUM flag.
>=20
> Actually, the PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT offload flag will be set if the
> testpmd flag is set, which means to tell HW treat  that transmit packet a=
s a tunneling packet to do checksum offload
>  When 'on' is set, which is able to meet Method B.1 and method C.
>=20
> When 'off' is set, the TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_TUNNEL_CKSUM is not needed
> to set, so the PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT offload flag is not needed to set,  =
then HW treat  that transmit packet as a non-tunneling
> packet. It is able to meet Method B.2.
>=20
> Is the explanation not clear?

Ok, and how I can set method A (testpmd treat all packets as non-tunnelling=
 and never look beyond outer L4 header) then?
Konstantin

>=20
> >
> > >
> > > 2. tx_checksum set outer-ip (hw|sw) (port-id) 3. tx_checksum set
> > > (ip|udp|tcp|sctp) (hw|sw) (port-id)
> > >
> > > The command 2 will be merged into command 3, the new command is '
> > > tx_checksum set  (outer-ip|ip|udp|tcp|sctp) (hw|sw) (port- id)'.
> > >
> > > These most of the cases in
> > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009213.html will be
> > > covered by using the two commands
> > >
> > > The command 'tx_checksum set hw-tunnel-mode (on|off)  (port-id)' is
> > > used to set/clear  TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_TUNNEL_CKSUM flag.
> > > Actually, the PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT offload flag will be set if the
> > > testpmd flag is set, which tell driver/HW treat  that transmit packet=
 as a
> > tunneling packet.
> > >
> > > When 'on' is set, which is able to meet Method B.1 and method C.
> > >
> > > When 'off' is set, the TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_TUNNEL_CKSUM is not needed
> > > to set, so the PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT offload flag is not needed to se=
t,  then
> > HW treat  that transmit packet as a non-tunneling packet. It is able to=
 meet
> > Method B.2.
> > >
> > > As to case A, I think it is not mandatory to cover it in csum fwd eng=
ine for
> > tunneling packet.
> > >
> > > Is the above description clear for you?
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Olivier