From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3874A0093; Tue, 19 May 2020 09:00:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1554E1D427; Tue, 19 May 2020 09:00:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CE91D154 for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 09:00:21 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: bGEEohLNG9UFU9Uu44bDI5DQpiIrxVhLMMSeFVY2cuGf7eMKnzL8C1vl+/AlOA1tUulmJYrqAH ShuVbXM3BVIQ== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 May 2020 00:00:20 -0700 IronPort-SDR: FwjnB+LpzLNW/Igayh/l74lIyU6WpoC/Sr10o4Hb6qvzbbKBWDhTDf8EVYCaWHK1eLYDIvWVlq eBPRs1Em4LhA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,409,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="465871282" Received: from jguo15x-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.67.68.182]) ([10.67.68.182]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2020 00:00:19 -0700 To: "Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)" , "beilei.xing@intel.com" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Olivier Matz References: <301f18faf1184d7fb3b3958f1dbb1675@nokia-sbell.com> <20200518072405.GG1739@platinum> <30f00b616c0049b9b3f5f26b70b4088f@nokia-sbell.com> From: Jeff Guo Message-ID: <34885cc0-edd9-9889-9799-a7c6d6485edd@intel.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 15:00:18 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <30f00b616c0049b9b3f5f26b70b4088f@nokia-sbell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" hi, xiaoping On 5/18/2020 4:31 PM, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote: > Hi Beilei & Jia, > > I got your name from the MAINTAINERS for Intel i40e. > Could you help to have a look at the issue, described in my previous mail? > > Thank you. > > Best regards > Yan Xiaoping > > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier Matz > Sent: 2020年5月18日 15:24 > To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf > > Hi, > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:12:27AM +0000, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm using i40e vf, dpdk 18.11, x86_64 CPU (rx function in use is >> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2) >> When enable hw vlan strip: >> >> * If packet fit in one mbuf segment, the vlan_tci field is correct >> * If packets are stored in several mbuf segment, the vlan_tci of last segment is correct, vlan_tci of other segments are invalid >> >> It seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts has correctly set the vlan_tci, by >> calling i40e_rxd_to_vlan_tci(first_seg, &rxd); >> >> Is this a bug in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2? >> (I didn't find setting vlan_tci for first segment, but it's a bit >> difficult for me to understand codes in >> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2, so I'm not quite sure) I checked >> the latest dpdk version 20.02 >> http://lxr.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_ >> avx2.c#L791 >> But seems no change for this. >> >> Any comment please? >> [...] > I don't know about the i40e driver, but I can confirm that the vlan tci flag should be in the first segment, and not in the next ones. > > I suggest to CC i40e driver maintainers. > > Regards, > Olivier On one hand, as Olivier said that vlan tci flag should be in the first segment, and on the other hands, vlan_tci do process in "_recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2" when use 256 instinct to process the descriptor with mbuf,  you could check how to process the vlan_flags_shuf and blend it into the mbuf.