From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAF55A75 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 05:13:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2015 20:13:39 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,862,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="445044862" Received: from irsmsx151.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.59]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2015 20:00:01 -0800 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.81]) by IRSMSX151.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.141]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 04:13:36 +0000 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Olivier MATZ , "Liu, Jijiang" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and csum forwarding engine Thread-Index: AQHQFSvOf5ZHcwOIQ0S6LPFf4KIhoZyLUqAAgADVrYCAJ+m7AIAAhGKAgAAcY4CAAAaCgIABXQMAgAAfBJCAAZMJAIAEQKUAgACGkwCAAQFCAIAAcvAAgAEemACAAkDH8IAB1gMAgARiT1CAACVrgIAAHEZAgAFUrACAADW5sIAAKFUAgACV94CAAMyvAIAHCkRw Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 04:13:35 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DF71B@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1418173403-30202-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA7CC5@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213D3897@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <54AFB13E.2080200@6wind.com> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA85A1@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <54B3B35A.5030803@6wind.com> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA8E36@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <54B4EB92.40209@6wind.com> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DB0789@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213D4FCF@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <54B94A18.5030700@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DCD25@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <54BD16F1.6050409@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DDF46@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <54BE4C70.7050406@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DE5FB@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <54BE9B56.7050108@6wind.com> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DB55DB@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <54BFC4D6.2010903@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <54BFC4D6.2010903@6wind.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" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 04:13:41 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: Hi lads, > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:25 PM > To: Liu, Jijiang; Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and cs= um forwarding engine >=20 > Hi, >=20 > On 01/21/2015 04:12 AM, Liu, Jijiang wrote: > >>>>> Ok, and why it should be our problem? > >>>>> We have a lot of things done in a different manner then > >>>>> linux/freebsd kernel drivers, Why now it became a problem? > >>>> > >>>> If linux doesn't need an equivalent flag for doing the same thing, i= t > >>>> probably means we don't need it either. > >>> > >>> Probably yes .... Or probably not. > >>> Why do we need to guess what was the intention of guys who wrote that > >> part of linux driver? > >> > >> Because the dpdk looks very similar to that part of linux driver. > > > > A guy from Intel who have already confirmed that the NVGRE is not sup= ported yet in Linux kernel. > > > > He said "So far as I know it is not yet supported and I have no informa= tion on when it will be." >=20 > I added the support of Ether over GRE, IP over GRE and IP over IP > tunnels in csumonly to do the test. I ask the csum forward engine > to calculate inner IP+TCP checksums, and outer IP (case 6 in [1]). > Here are the results: >=20 > 1/ When I use I40E_TXD_CTX_UDP_TUNNELING: > - vxlan: all checksums ok > - eth over gre: all checksums ok > - ip over gre: not transmitted by hw > - ip over ip: all checksums wrong (set to 0 by hw) >=20 > 2/ When I use I40E_TXD_CTX_GRE_TUNNELING: > - vxlan: checksums ok > - eth over gre: all checksums ok > - ip over gre: all checksums ok > - ip over ip: all checksums wrong (set to 0 by hw) >=20 > 3/ When I use 00b: > - vxlan: all checksums ok > - eth over gre: all checksums ok > - ip over gre: all checksums ok > - ip over ip: checksums wrong (set to 0 by hw) >=20 > All the ip over ip tests do not work yet for an unknown reason. > There is maybe something wrong in my app or in the driver > (although the registers looks consistent with the datasheet). >=20 > I think we could use 3/ for all tunnels, because the ipip case > is supposed to work according to the datasheet, and all other cases > work too. >=20 > It would allow to remove the UDP_TUNNELING flag from mbuf API. >=20 > I will send a RFC patch that provides the API change and this new > feature in csum forward engine, with full tests on ixgbe and i40e > and explanations for all changes. >=20 > Regards, > Olivier >=20 > [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-January/011127.html I tried to repeat Olivier test-cases on my box. Though, I didn't use test-pmd cusmonly and i40ePMD logic, but filled TCD a= nd TDD mostly from hardcoded values. That's what I got: 4 input packets: a) ETHER/IPv4/UDP/VXLAN/ETHER/IPV4/TCP b) ETHER/IPv4/GRE/ETHER/IPV4/TCP c) ETHER/IPv4/GRE/IPV4/TCP d) ETHER/IPv4/IPV4/TCP 1/ L4TUNT=3D=3D1(I40E_TXD_CTX_UDP_TUNNELING): a),b): all checksums ok c),d): not transmitted by HW. 2/ L4TUNT=3D=3D2(I40E_TXD_CTX_GRE_TUNNELING): a) b),c): all checksums ok d): not transmitted by HW. 3/ L4TUNT=3D=3D0(UNKNOWN): a),b),c),d): all checksums ok So yes, it seems that L4TUNT=3D=3D0 works perfectly ok for all cases, as lo= ng as L4TUNLEN and other TCD values are setup properly. Which makes me think, that probably we can do what you suggested: just use= L4TUNT=3D0 for all cases.=20 Though as Jijiang said, we waiting for confirmation from FVL guys, that the= re are no hidden implications with that approach. Another thing - IPIP seems to work ok by HW. There is something wrong on our (PMD/test-pmd) side. I think at least we have to remove the following check: if (!l2_len) { PMD_DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "L2 length set to 0"); return; } in i40e_txd_enable_checksum(). Konstantin