From: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Cc: "Kulasek, TomaszX" <tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>,
Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] mbuf: move headers not fragmented check to checksum
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:48:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FA465F7-B774-482F-B7AB-39B855F7B4C8@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ada4aea4-65e3-19ed-f55e-c6e3edefaa63@solarflare.com>
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 3:50 AM, Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com> wrote:
>
> Ping.
>
> Do 2 weeks without reply mean that it looks good and I should send non-RCF version?
Just send the non-RFC patch as it seems most do not even look at the RFC’s anyway.
>
> Andrew.
>
> On 1/29/19 11:49 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> rte_validate_tx_offload() is used in Tx prepare callbacks
>> (RTE_LIBRTE_ETHDEV_DEBUG only) to check Tx offloads consistency.
>> Requirement that packet headers should not be fragmented is not
>> documented and unclear where it comes from except
>> rte_net_intel_cksum_prepare() functions which relies on it.
>>
>> It could be NIC vendor specific driver or hardware limitation, but,
>> if so, it should be documented and checked in corresponding Tx
>> prepare callbacks.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
>> ---
>> May be the check should be done in rte_net_intel_cksum_prepare()
>> under RTE_LIBRTE_ETHDEV_DEBUG only. Mainly I'd like to get feedback
>> on where the limitation comes from and idea to remove it from
>> rte_validate_tx_offload().
>>
>> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 12 ------------
>> lib/librte_net/rte_net.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>> index a7f67023a..14a3b472b 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>> @@ -2257,23 +2257,11 @@ static inline int
>> rte_validate_tx_offload(const struct rte_mbuf *m)
>> {
>> uint64_t ol_flags = m->ol_flags;
>> - uint64_t inner_l3_offset = m->l2_len;
>> /* Does packet set any of available offloads? */
>> if (!(ol_flags & PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK))
>> return 0;
>> - if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM)
>> - /* NB: elaborating the addition like this instead of using
>> - * += gives the result uint64_t type instead of int,
>> - * avoiding compiler warnings on gcc 8.1 at least */
>> - inner_l3_offset = inner_l3_offset + m->outer_l2_len +
>> - m->outer_l3_len;
>> -
>> - /* Headers are fragmented */
>> - if (rte_pktmbuf_data_len(m) < inner_l3_offset + m->l3_len + m->l4_len)
>> - return -ENOTSUP;
>> -
>> /* IP checksum can be counted only for IPv4 packet */
>> if ((ol_flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) && (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV6))
>> return -EINVAL;
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h b/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h
>> index e59760a0a..bd75aea8e 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h
>> +++ b/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h
>> @@ -118,10 +118,27 @@ rte_net_intel_cksum_flags_prepare(struct rte_mbuf *m, uint64_t ol_flags)
>> struct udp_hdr *udp_hdr;
>> uint64_t inner_l3_offset = m->l2_len;
>> + /*
>> + * Does packet set any of available offloads?
>> + * Mainly it is required to avoid fragmented headers check if
>> + * no offloads are requested.
>> + */
>> + if (!(ol_flags & PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> if ((ol_flags & PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM) ||
>> (ol_flags & PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6))
>> inner_l3_offset += m->outer_l2_len + m->outer_l3_len;
>> + /*
>> + * Check if headers are fragmented.
>> + * The check could be less strict depending on which offloads are
>> + * requested and headers to be used, but let's keep it simple.
>> + */
>> + if (unlikely(rte_pktmbuf_data_len(m) <
>> + inner_l3_offset + m->l3_len + m->l4_len))
>> + return -ENOTSUP;
>> +
>> if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {
>> ipv4_hdr = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(m, struct ipv4_hdr *,
>> inner_l3_offset);
>
Regards,
Keith
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-13 14:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-29 8:49 Andrew Rybchenko
2019-02-13 9:50 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-02-13 14:48 ` Wiles, Keith [this message]
2019-02-13 23:27 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-02-19 6:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-28 17:04 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-28 17:04 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-29 13:09 ` Olivier Matz
2019-03-29 13:09 ` Olivier Matz
2019-03-29 13:30 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-29 13:30 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-29 13:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-29 13:42 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-03-29 14:18 ` Olivier Matz
2019-03-29 14:18 ` Olivier Matz
2019-04-02 14:48 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-04-02 14:48 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=3FA465F7-B774-482F-B7AB-39B855F7B4C8@intel.com \
--to=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=sthemmin@microsoft.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=tomaszx.kulasek@intel.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).