From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53BD858C3 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 16:12:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jul 2018 07:12:15 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,422,1526367600"; d="scan'208";a="220275353" Received: from irsmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.23]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2018 07:12:14 -0700 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.195]) by IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.124]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:12:12 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Jerin Jacob CC: Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "shahafs@mellanox.com" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples: remove Rx checksum offload Thread-Index: AQHUJ+rTbYTaAeI/8Ei5xbV+p36eKKSnl/VQ///1goCAAD4HUA== Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 14:12:12 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258DF51F775@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20180729124409.3669-1-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258DF51F641@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20180730093555.GA22823@jerin> <1687236.JLa48GYJ5r@xps> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258DF51F702@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20180730111823.GA30059@jerin> In-Reply-To: <20180730111823.GA30059@jerin> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNGU3OGFhMjUtYjcwOS00N2Y1LTlmNzMtZmNjMmM5NDQyNTliIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiQ1hxSzVxaERaOVwvSms3czJJVys5VDdFOWdVZ09NQVwvaDNqNVZRQmtqTldqdTRIY0tSXC81YWFCdlk5VmNUV0k4diJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 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] examples: remove Rx checksum offload 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: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 14:12:20 -0000 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:00:02 +0000 > > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" > > To: Thomas Monjalon , Jerin Jacob > > > > CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Yigit, Ferruh" > > , "shahafs@mellanox.com" > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples: remove Rx checksum offload > > > > External Email > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 10:51 AM > > > To: Jerin Jacob ; Ananyev, Konstantin= > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh ; shahafs@mel= lanox.com > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples: remove Rx checksum offload > > > > > > 30/07/2018 11:35, Jerin Jacob: > > > > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" > > > > > > > > > > > > As of now, application does not check PKT_RX_*_CKSUM_* flags pe= r > > > > > > packet, so it does not matter DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM enabled o= r not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Removing DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM offload so that driver can sav= e a few > > > > > > cycles if possible. > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I'd move in other direction: keep RX checksum offload= and add > > > > > checks inside sample apps to handle (drop) packets with invalid c= hecksum. > > > > > > > > OK. Till someones add the DROP logic in application, Can we take > > > > this patch? Because there is no point in enabling DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CH= ECKSUM > > > > without DROP or any meaning full action in application. > > > > Probably, but at least it gives users a right estimation how long the p= roper > > RX/TX routine would take. >=20 > For estimation, application can add any flag they want in local setup. > It does not need to be upstream with out feature complete. >=20 > > From other side what the point to disable these flags now, if we know t= hat >=20 > At least nicvf Rx routines are crafted based DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_CHECKSUM > flags. If driver Rx routine crafted such case it will be useful. >=20 > > we are doing wrong thing and will have to re-enable them again in futur= e? >=20 > But it is not correct now either. Right? Yes, right now invalid cksum information is simply ignored. As you pointed - some PMD select RX routine based on checksum offload flags= . Yes, removing these flags might produce better performance numbers. But from my perspective - it would be an artificial and temporary improveme= nt, as for l3fwd like apps we'll need to revert it back and add code to drop in= valid packets. Konstantin >=20 > > > > > > > > If there is no patch sent to use this offload on August 1st, > > > then I will apply this patch to remove the offload request. > > > > > > > Isn't it too late to do such things right now? > > We are in RC3 stage and doesn't look like a critical issue. >=20 > Yes. We can add it when have we proper fix. Currently, it signaling a wro= ng > interpretation to application. >=20 >=20 > > Konstantin > > > >