From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8AEB2F7D for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:35:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Sep 2017 02:35:43 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,392,1500966000"; d="scan'208";a="1194983412" Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.155]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2017 02:35:42 -0700 Received: from irsmsx156.ger.corp.intel.com (10.108.20.68) by IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:35:41 +0100 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.75]) by IRSMSX156.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.130]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:35:41 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: "Hu, Jiayu" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Kavanagh, Mark B" , "Tan, Jianfeng" Thread-Topic: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support Thread-Index: AQHTK3CNNYr96WyXIECiBIjbMlkDdaKxEVgwgAA6OTCAAUc9gIAAyrWAgAB6OYCAADvfkP///JqAgAARR4A= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:35:41 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F24AE4D@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1504598270-60080-1-git-send-email-jiayu.hu@intel.com> <1505184211-36728-1-git-send-email-jiayu.hu@intel.com> <1505184211-36728-3-git-send-email-jiayu.hu@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F249FE8@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170913104407.GA57844@dpdk15.sh.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F24AACB@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170914060705.GA60858@dpdk15.sh.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F24ADD2@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiM2VjMzkwNDctYWU2Ni00YTI0LThiYjItYWJiNjhjMmY5ZjJlIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjUuOS4zIiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IndGR2I4dDFiSjN3eFJnUlJweEh2Tm9YSDRrU215eDMzRXJVUXZTclJIMkU9In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.0.116 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:35:56 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Hu, Jiayu > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:29 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kavanagh, Mark B ; Tan, Jian= feng > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support >=20 > Hi Konstantin, >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:47 PM > > To: Hu, Jiayu > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kavanagh, Mark B ; Tan, > > Jianfeng > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support > > > > Hi Jiayu, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hu, Jiayu > > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 7:07 AM > > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kavanagh, Mark B ; Tan, > > Jianfeng > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support > > > > > > Hi Konstantin, > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 06:10:37AM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Jiayu, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 12:18 PM > > > > > > > To: Hu, Jiayu ; dev@dpdk.org > > > > > > > Cc: Kavanagh, Mark B ; Tan, Jianfe= ng > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > result, when all of its GSOed segments are freed, the packe= t is > > freed > > > > > > > > automatically. > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.c b/lib/librte_gso/rte_= gso.c > > > > > > > > index dda50ee..95f6ea6 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.c > > > > > > > > @@ -33,18 +33,53 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #include > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +#include > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > #include "rte_gso.h" > > > > > > > > +#include "gso_common.h" > > > > > > > > +#include "gso_tcp4.h" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int > > > > > > > > rte_gso_segment(struct rte_mbuf *pkt, > > > > > > > > - struct rte_gso_ctx gso_ctx __rte_unused, > > > > > > > > + struct rte_gso_ctx gso_ctx, > > > > > > > > struct rte_mbuf **pkts_out, > > > > > > > > uint16_t nb_pkts_out) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > + struct rte_mempool *direct_pool, *indirect_pool; > > > > > > > > + struct rte_mbuf *pkt_seg; > > > > > > > > + uint16_t gso_size; > > > > > > > > + uint8_t ipid_delta; > > > > > > > > + int ret =3D 1; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > if (pkt =3D=3D NULL || pkts_out =3D=3D NULL || nb_pkts_ou= t < 1) > > > > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - pkts_out[0] =3D pkt; > > > > > > > > + if (gso_ctx.gso_size >=3D pkt->pkt_len || > > > > > > > > + (pkt->packet_type & gso_ctx.gso_types) !=3D > > > > > > > > + pkt->packet_type) { > > > > > > > > + pkts_out[0] =3D pkt; > > > > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + direct_pool =3D gso_ctx.direct_pool; > > > > > > > > + indirect_pool =3D gso_ctx.indirect_pool; > > > > > > > > + gso_size =3D gso_ctx.gso_size; > > > > > > > > + ipid_delta =3D gso_ctx.ipid_flag =3D=3D RTE_GSO_IPID_INCR= EASE; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + if (is_ipv4_tcp(pkt->packet_type)) { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably we need here: > > > > > > > If (is_ipv4_tcp(pkt->packet_type) && (gso_ctx->gso_types & > > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO) !=3D 0) {... > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, actually it probably should be: > > > > > > If (pkt->ol_flags & (PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_IPV4) =3D=3D PKT_T= X_IPV4 > > && > > > > > > (gso_ctx->gso_types & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO) !=3D 0) {..= . > > > > > > > > > > I don't quite understand why the GSO library should be aware if t= he TSO > > > > > flag is set or not. Applications can query device TSO capability = before > > > > > they call the GSO library. Do I misundertsand anything? > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, we don't need to check if the packet is a TCP/IPv4 = packet > > here? > > > > > > > > Well, right now PMD we doesn't rely on ptype to figure out what ty= pe of > > packet and > > > > what TX offload have to be performed. > > > > Instead it looks at TX part of ol_flags, and > > > > My thought was that as what we doing is actually TSO in SW, it woul= d be > > good > > > > to use the same API here too. > > > > Also with that approach, by setting ol_flags properly user can use = the > > same gso_ctx and still > > > > specify what segmentation to perform on a per-packet basis. > > > > > > > > Alternative way is to rely on ptype to distinguish should segmentat= ion be > > performed on that package or not. > > > > The only advantage I see here is that if someone would like to add = GSO > > for some new protocol, > > > > he wouldn't need to introduce new TX flag value for mbuf.ol_flags. > > > > Though he still would need to update TX_OFFLOAD_* capabilities and > > probably packet_type definitions. > > > > > > > > So from my perspective first variant (use HW TSO API) is more plaus= ible. > > > > Wonder what is your and Mark opinions here? > > > > > > In the first choice, you mean: > > > the GSO library uses gso_ctx->gso_types and mbuf->ol_flags to call a > > specific GSO > > > segmentation function (e.g. gso_tcp4_segment(), gso_tunnel_xxx()) for > > each input packet. > > > Applications should parse the packet type, and set an exactly correct > > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO > > > flag to gso_types and ol_flags according to the packet type. That is,= the > > value of gso_types > > > is on a per-packet basis. Using gso_ctx->gso_types and mbuf->ol_flags= at > > the same time > > > is because that DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO only tells tunnelling type and t= he > > inner L4 type, and > > > we need to know L3 type by ol_flags. With this design, HW segmentatio= n > > and SW segmentation > > > are indeed consistent. > > > > > > If I understand it correctly, applications need to set 'ol_flags =3D > > PKT_TX_IPV4' and > > > 'gso_types =3D DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_TNL_TSO' for a > > "ether+ipv4+udp+vxlan+ether+ipv4+ > > > tcp+payload" packet. But PKT_TX_IPV4 just present the inner L3 type f= or > > tunneled packet. > > > How about the outer L3 type? Always assume the inner and the outer L3 > > type are the same? > > > > It think that for that case you'll have to set in ol_flags: > > > > PKT_TX_IPV4 | PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 | PKT_TX_TUNNEL_VXLAN | > > PKT_TX_TCP_SEG >=20 > OK, so it means PKT_TX_TCP_SEG is also used for tunneled TSO. The > GSO library doesn't need gso_types anymore. You still might need gso_ctx.gso_types to let user limit what types of segm= entation that particular gso_ctx supports. An alternative would be to assume that each gso_ctx supports all currently implemented segmentations. This is possible too, but probably not very convenient to the user. Konstantin >=20 > The first choice makes HW and SW segmentation are totally the same. > Applications just need to parse the packet and set proper ol_flags, and > the GSO library uses ol_flags to decide which segmentation function to us= e. > I think it's better than the second choice which depending on ptype to > choose segmentation function. >=20 > Jiayu > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > > Jiayu > > > > Konstantin