From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: "Chandran, Sugesh" <sugesh.chandran@intel.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
"Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:02:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57581762.4070003@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2EF2F5C0CC56984AA024D0B180335FCB13DDC6C0@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Hi,
On 06/08/2016 10:22 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
>>> 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.
> [Sugesh] True, If that's the case, Will you considering to implement IP
> checksum flags as well along with L4?
> As you said , this will be useful when we offload packet lookup itself into the NICs(May be
> when using Flow director) ?
Yes, I plan to implement the same rx status flags (good, bad, unknown,
none) for rx IP checksum too.
Regards,
Olivier
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-08 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-30 15:26 Olivier Matz
2016-05-30 16:07 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2016-05-31 2:43 ` Tan, Jianfeng
2016-05-31 10:08 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2016-05-31 19:11 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-05-31 8:09 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-05-31 19:11 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-05-31 20:28 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-05-31 20:58 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-05-31 22:02 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-06-01 9:06 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-06-02 7:42 ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-06-03 12:43 ` Olivier Matz
2016-06-08 8:22 ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-06-08 13:02 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2016-06-10 16:15 ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-07-06 12:52 ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-07-06 13:18 ` 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=57581762.4070003@6wind.com \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jianfeng.tan@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=sugesh.chandran@intel.com \
--cc=yuanhan.liu@linux.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).