DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Chandran, Sugesh" <sugesh.chandran@intel.com>
To: 'Olivier Matz' <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: "'dev@dpdk.org'" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:52:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2EF2F5C0CC56984AA024D0B180335FCB13DE97A5@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2EF2F5C0CC56984AA024D0B180335FCB13DDDEB3@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>

Hi Olivier,

Just to confirm , is this rx checksum patch already submitted in the DPDK ML?
We would like to use these flags to speed up the tunneling in OVS.



Regards
_Sugesh


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chandran, Sugesh
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:16 PM
> To: 'Olivier Matz' <olivier.matz@6wind.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Stephen Hemminger
> <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Richardson,
> Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Adrien Mazarguil
> <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>; Tan, Jianfeng <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> _Sugesh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 2:02 PM
> > To: Chandran, Sugesh <sugesh.chandran@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Stephen Hemminger
> > <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Adrien Mazarguil
> > <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>; Tan, Jianfeng <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 06/08/2016 10:22 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
> > >>> I guess the IP checksum also important as L4. In some cases, UDP
> > >>> checksum is zero and no need to validate it. But Ip checksum is
> > >>> present on all the packets and that must be validated all  the time.
> > >>> At higher packet rate, the ip checksum offload can offer slight
> > >>> performance
> > >> improvement. What do you think??
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Agree, in some situations (and this is even more true with packet
> > >> types / smartnics), the application could process without accessing
> > >> the packet data if we keep the IP cksum flags.
> > > [Sugesh] True, If that's the case, Will you considering to implement
> > > IP checksum flags as well along with L4?
> > > As you said , this will be useful when we offload packet lookup
> > > itself into the NICs(May be when using Flow director) ?
> >
> > Yes, I plan to implement the same rx status flags (good, bad, unknown,
> > none) for rx IP checksum too.
> [Sugesh] That's great!, Thank you Olivier.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Olivier

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-06 12:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-30 15:26 Olivier Matz
2016-05-30 16:07 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2016-05-31  2:43 ` Tan, Jianfeng
2016-05-31 10:08   ` Adrien Mazarguil
2016-05-31 19:11     ` Olivier MATZ
2016-05-31  8:09 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-05-31 19:11   ` Olivier MATZ
2016-05-31 20:28     ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-05-31 20:58       ` Olivier MATZ
2016-05-31 22:02         ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-06-01  9:06           ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-06-02  7:42             ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-06-03 12:43               ` Olivier Matz
2016-06-08  8:22                 ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-06-08 13:02                   ` Olivier Matz
2016-06-10 16:15                     ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-07-06 12:52                       ` Chandran, Sugesh [this message]
2016-07-06 13:18                         ` Olivier MATZ

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2EF2F5C0CC56984AA024D0B180335FCB13DE97A5@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com \
    --to=sugesh.chandran@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).