From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F27E5A5A for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:43:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214] helo=[192.168.0.10]) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b8oTh-0003XA-76; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:45:29 +0200 To: "Chandran, Sugesh" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Stephen Hemminger References: <574C5B9D.4080006@6wind.com> <20160531080916.GI5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <574DE1FF.6060402@6wind.com> <20160531132820.4fadfc2e@xeon-e3> <574DFB11.5020701@6wind.com> <20160531150247.15819f1d@xeon-e3> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B694D3@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2EF2F5C0CC56984AA024D0B180335FCB13DDA800@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> Cc: Yuanhan Liu , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Richardson, Bruce" , Adrien Mazarguil , "Tan, Jianfeng" From: Olivier Matz Message-ID: <57517B5C.4040206@6wind.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:43:08 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2EF2F5C0CC56984AA024D0B180335FCB13DDA800@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:43:16 -0000 Hi, On 06/02/2016 09:42 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote: >>>> Do you also suggest to drop IP checksum flags? >>> > > >>> > > IP checksum offload is mostly useless. If application needs to look at >>> > > IP, it can do whole checksum in very few instructions, the whole >>> > > header is in the same cache line as src/dst so the HW offload is really no >> > help. >>> > > > [Sugesh] The checksum offload can boost the tunneling performance in OVS. > 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. Regards, Olivier