DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	 "didier.pallard" <didier.pallard@6wind.com>,
	"Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/3] mbuf:replace the inner_l2_len and the inner_l3_len fields
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:57:21 +0100
Message-ID: <547ED071.3080101@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BC075@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>

Hi Didier, Konstantin, Jijiang,

On 12/02/2014 04:36 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Didier
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of didier.pallard
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 2:53 PM
>> To: Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/3] mbuf:replace the inner_l2_len and the inner_l3_len fields
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 12/02/2014 07:52 AM, Jijiang Liu wrote:
>>> Replace the inner_l2_len and the inner_l3_len field with the outer_l2_len and outer_l3_len field, and rework csum forward engine
>> and i40e PMD due to  these changes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
>> [...]
>>> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>> @@ -276,8 +276,8 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
>>>    			uint64_t tso_segsz:16; /**< TCP TSO segment size */
>>>
>>>    			/* fields for TX offloading of tunnels */
>>> -			uint64_t inner_l3_len:9; /**< inner L3 (IP) Hdr Length. */
>>> -			uint64_t inner_l2_len:7; /**< inner L2 (MAC) Hdr Length. */
>>> +			uint64_t outer_l3_len:9; /**< Outer L3 (IP) Hdr Length. */
>>> +			uint64_t outer_l2_len:7; /**< Outer L2 (MAC) Hdr Length. */
>>>
>>>    			/* uint64_t unused:8; */
>>>    		};
>>
>> Sorry for entering lately this discussion, but i'm not convinced by the
>> choice of outer_lx_len rather than inner_lx_len for new fields.
>> I agree with Olivier that new flags should only be related to the use of
>> new fields, to maintain coherency with oldest implementations.
>> But from a stack point of view, i think it is better to have lx_len
>> fields that target the outer layers, and to name new fields inner_lx_len.
>>
>> Let's discuss the two possibilities.
>>
>> 1) outer_lx_len fields are introduced.
>> In this case, the stack should have knowledge that it is processing
>> tunneled packets to use outer_lx_len rather than lx_len,
>> or stack should always use outer_lx_len packet and move those fields to
>> lx_len packets if no tunneling occurs...
>> I think it will induce extra processing that does not seem to be really
>> needed.
>>
>> 2) inner_lx_len fields are introduced.
>> In this case, the stack first uses lx_len fields. When packet should be
>> tunneled, lx_len fields are moved to inner_lx_len fields.
>> Then the stack can process the outer layer and still use the lx_len fields.
>
> Not sure, that I understood why 2) is better than 1).
> Let say,  you have a 'normal' (non-tunnelling) packet: ether/IP/TCP
> In that case you still use mbuf's l2_len/l3_len/l4_len fields and setup ol_flags as usual.
> Then later, you decided to 'tunnel' that packet.
> So you just fill mbuf's outer_l2_len/outer_l3_len, setup TX_OUTER_* and TX_TUNNEL_* bits in ol_flags and probably update l2_len.
> l3_len/l4_len and ol_flags bits set for them remain intact.
> That's with 1)
>
> With 2) - you'll have to move l3_len/l4_len to inner_lx_len.
> And I suppose ol_flags values too:
> ol_flags &= ~PKT_ IP_CKSUM;
> ol_flgas  |=  PKT_INNER_IP_CKSUM
> ?
> And same for L4_CKSUM flags too?

After reading Didier's mail, I start to be convinced that keeping inner
may be better than outer. From a network stack architecture point of
view, 2) looks better:

- the functions in the network stack that write the Ether/IP header
   always deal with l2_len/l3_len, whatever it's a tunnel or not.

- the function that adds the tunnel header moves the l2_len/l3_len and
   the flags to inner_l2_len/inner_l3_len and inner_flags.

Althought it was my first idea, now I cannot find a better argument in
favor of outer_lX_len. The initial argument was that the correspondance
between a flag and a lX_len should always remain the same, but it is
still possible with Didier's approach:
   - PKT_IP_CKSUM uses l2_len and l3_len
   - PKT_INNER_CKSUM uses inner_l2_len and inner_l3_len

Jijiang, I'm sorry to change my mind about this. If you want (and if
Konstantin is also ok with that), I can try to rebase your patches to
match this. Or do you prefer to do it by yourself?

Regards,
Olivier

  reply	other threads:[~2014-12-03  8:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-02  6:52 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/3] i40e VXLAN TX checksum rework Jijiang Liu
2014-12-02  6:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] mbuf:redefine three TX ol_flags Jijiang Liu
2014-12-02  6:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM Jijiang Liu
2014-12-02  6:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/3] mbuf:replace the inner_l2_len and the inner_l3_len fields Jijiang Liu
2014-12-02 14:53   ` didier.pallard
2014-12-02 15:36     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-03  8:57       ` Olivier MATZ [this message]
2014-12-03 11:11         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-03 11:27           ` 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=547ED071.3080101@6wind.com \
    --to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=didier.pallard@6wind.com \
    --cc=jijiang.liu@intel.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@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

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git