From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com> Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D4B5A1F for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:13:08 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id em10so24311383wid.5 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:13:08 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vxZqgUyrlxztmJmFhbEzSWoC3tDmXOX4LGbAlZpch4E=; b=ckJ72hBX3kghHAdAb5Ixr9LVTLq+bm2M2+NW0URBm/xPsXwzyTzFIHG15VsVJN0OW7 fXMJSFL9JjavxdvcNNhH1UVbRnni2aaETbr/5SLOIH4v3r3hG8KIFqQHMbzUpTrVDy5n 6Y4eiSLq6ZS7frOb9V6oD32wVW97THLCQEidQwp4lUNDAEy4cOCWLWhS+4dTav6Vgr+p Oh4WbbFTw8gNk+qSem1JkENfm+2aFlKZs39W/R1onkypUkDXoDJOo9Gcnu9M16qX61Dj eC9wKvGRRdgB05O9YESDtbujm1lG7hvvmoXR6EXMXQqzXuO3hRDlBfHRfOhbfkbmCqRq LWVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl7ATricGi+e5M+G+kv8hHwSqrANsDo3uyPf1ltM7cpxic8+G12sWE1b7oAKf9dbHLOqt/b X-Received: by 10.180.206.47 with SMTP id ll15mr59863048wic.34.1421860388149; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:13:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.16.0.195] (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dn2sm8054650wib.14.2015.01.21.09.13.06 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:13:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54BFDE22.9050300@6wind.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:13:06 +0100 From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com> References: <1418173403-30202-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> <54AFB13E.2080200@6wind.com> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA85A1@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <54B3B35A.5030803@6wind.com> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DA8E36@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <54B4EB92.40209@6wind.com> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DB0789@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213D4FCF@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <54B94A18.5030700@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DCD25@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <54BD16F1.6050409@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DDF46@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <54BE4C70.7050406@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DE5FB@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <54BE9B56.7050108@6wind.com> <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01DB55DB@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <54BFC4D6.2010903@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DEA1E@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DEA1E@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and csum forwarding engine X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:13:08 -0000 Hi Konstantin, On 01/21/2015 05:28 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >> I added the support of Ether over GRE, IP over GRE and IP over IP >> tunnels in csumonly to do the test. I ask the csum forward engine >> to calculate inner IP+TCP checksums, and outer IP (case 6 in [1]). >> Here are the results: >> >> 1/ When I use I40E_TXD_CTX_UDP_TUNNELING: >> - vxlan: all checksums ok >> - eth over gre: all checksums ok >> - ip over gre: not transmitted by hw >> - ip over ip: all checksums wrong (set to 0 by hw) >> >> 2/ When I use I40E_TXD_CTX_GRE_TUNNELING: >> - vxlan: checksums ok >> - eth over gre: all checksums ok >> - ip over gre: all checksums ok >> - ip over ip: all checksums wrong (set to 0 by hw) >> >> 3/ When I use 00b: >> - vxlan: all checksums ok >> - eth over gre: all checksums ok >> - ip over gre: all checksums ok >> - ip over ip: checksums wrong (set to 0 by hw) > > Wow, so there is absolutely no difference in results for L4TUNT=2(GRE) and L4TUNT=0, right? > And IP over IP doesn't work at all? Right. I probably missed something in i40e driver. The application seems to fill the mbuf properly. > I suppose you set L4TUNLEN as described in spec for each case, right? I think so. > That looks really weird to me and as I can see completely contradicts with what spec. > I suppose we'll need to reproduce all that tests on our HW too. > Could you send to us a patch with your changes, so we can try same thing? > Or just a dump of TDD and TCD values for each case. Sure, I'm going to send all my code and tests in a RFC patchset in a few minutes. By the way, I'm off tomorrow, I won't be able to answer. Regards, Olivier