From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6AB2F7D for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:38:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Sep 2017 11:38:49 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,394,1500966000"; d="scan'208";a="151414148" Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.3]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2017 11:38:44 -0700 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.75]) by IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.167]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 19:38:43 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: "Kavanagh, Mark B" , "Hu, Jiayu" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Tan, Jianfeng" Thread-Topic: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support Thread-Index: AQHTK3CNNYr96WyXIECiBIjbMlkDdaKxEVgwgAA6OTCAAUc9gIAAyrWAgAB6OYCAADvfkP///JqAgAARR4D///eegIAAX0SAgABB4iA= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 18:38:42 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F24B081@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> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F24AE4D@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: [163.33.239.181] 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 18:38:51 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Kavanagh, Mark B > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:42 PM > To: Hu, Jiayu ; Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Tan, Jianfeng > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support >=20 > >From: Hu, Jiayu > >Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 11:01 AM > >To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; Kavanagh, Mark B > > > >Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Tan, Jianfeng > >Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support > > > >Hi Konstantin and Mark, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ananyev, Konstantin > >> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 5:36 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Hu, Jiayu > >> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:29 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, > >> > > >> > > -----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 wr= ote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 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, > >> Jianfeng > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO suppor= t > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > result, when all of its GSOed segments are freed, the = packet > >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_pk= ts_out < 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= _INCREASE; > >> > > > > > > > > + > >> > > > > > > > > + if (is_ipv4_tcp(pkt->packet_type)) { > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Probably we need here: > >> > > > > > > > If (is_ipv4_tcp(pkt->packet_type) && (gso_ctx->gso_type= s & > >> > > 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_TX_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 > >the > >> TSO > >> > > > > > flag is set or not. Applications can query device TSO capabi= lity > >> 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 wh= at > >type > >> 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= would > >> 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 > >segmentation > >> 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_fl= ags. > >> > > > > 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 > >> plausible. > >> > > > > 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 ca= ll 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 co= rrect > >> > > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO > >> > > > flag to gso_types and ol_flags according to the packet type. Tha= t 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 > >> the > >> > > inner L4 type, and > >> > > > we need to know L3 type by ol_flags. With this design, HW > >> segmentation > >> > > 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 t= ype > >for > >> > > tunneled packet. > >> > > > How about the outer L3 type? Always assume the inner and the out= er 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 > >> > > >> > 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 > >> segmentation > >> 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. > > > >Hmm, make sense. > > > >One thing to confirm: the value of gso_types should be DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_= TSO, > >or new macros? >=20 > Hi Jiayu, Konstantin, >=20 > I think that the existing macros are fine, as they provide a consistent v= iew of segmentation capabilities to the application/user. +1 I also think it is better to re-use DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO. >=20 > I was initially concerned that they might be too coarse-grained (i.e. onl= y IPv4 is currently supported, and not IPv6), but as per Konstantin's > previous example, the DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO macros can be used in concert = with the packet type to determine whether a packet should > be fragmented or not. >=20 > Thanks, > Mark >=20 > > > >Jiayu > >> Konstantin > >> > >> > > >> > 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 > >use. > >> > I think it's better than the second choice which depending on ptype = to > >> > choose segmentation function. > >> > > >> > Jiayu > >> > > > >> > > Konstantin > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Jiayu > >> > > > > Konstantin