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