From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE63A00E6 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 09:41:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 878E11B9A5; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 09:41:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com (mail-io1-f67.google.com [209.85.166.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7E71B197 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 20:09:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id h6so44030496iom.7 for ; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 11:09:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=J47qgMKgV74LziDPWPQoST3VL+7zo8G5tmqi56lfhQI=; b=pDNFWOH80Zjxb/zBa5CGtLUUdprYqod8qAssvuVdk7lSIejlmWGDmj2h59rTb4I/59 rr7f2IUIIQJec5ttuWpdWM12udAvlr6UoE9+BgBBPZygF/h3L2Su5XANRwysqAW9Rr1b 4oeRtiywj8CSB8wgJQT0HkMSHOE3M8Tqz4BJDjmszpvNBPqBlfc3cjxItQ0gkBlsfjLd QX6BeYSQh96HC6ULQloMZiqj0QH8smQ2x4Ljgc1KMXUdxtQxFhBZeqaf2vZ2hsf71y4k meYrJFpSFhk/jp0SC+ts+BX59MkfbuxC4YwvaFw6O0aKYgVZNXGRI0GLuASSs+cRPSkT a5bg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=J47qgMKgV74LziDPWPQoST3VL+7zo8G5tmqi56lfhQI=; b=IITBqawPsOAh1NPtzN0MAu0veOAdd0KXTehXJRotPi64sCAH3bYGR72HNkzgUhrHVU 7hQOejleUgR0vu9Pv/pcj1qZgmyQi8c17DKyYi/S4O4SXYLrLDh3YkjSoT/TZc5XtKOG 9F989hiLGdBUKCb6Ctswk+zlR5BEbQjkJvu2/irTLL8ahdNsoYMsXsD3avI4x3Uyfjmm lcFRX2nAmVZ50P4rJgKC5nstVXIiDeX8S/1Lae3xA6Rp1aJxlDLaop3+dvpQxWShq1N9 5XSnaC+G06wvu4FdvyJ1tT99K5MCqpewKwtTRNvWVCc51xnD7SEhq4WD242enlhfe0MB VZIw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVXPRIDeQgMHYPwaGsr0I3EqICnCp1fv43iNY1y5yUI5EzChhHe V2hvvvWmKWRqtVU9xOPb2+ML2Y9n6uEyvoMirJyX7Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwMU/gBP4c+5XU/KaDGY9ssTXFU0WBzBG2M1wDZzH5VDwCzJRnoOVNsVscrR1lvJsK0dqbEWfJhIPt+HQrIaLw= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:948a:: with SMTP id v10mr14453713ioj.103.1565028593372; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 11:09:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: kumaraparameshwaran rathinavel Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 23:39:40 +0530 Message-ID: To: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 09:41:29 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Virtio Checksum Errors X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi All, I had recently tried using TSO on the DPDK virtio guest driver and I get the TCP checksum errors at the client side. I tried running iperf and Apache bench We have been using the same TCP/IP stack for other DPDK pmd drivers and they are working fine. I did notice that incase of virtio alone we do calculate the IP payload in pseudo check sum, please correct me if I am wrong. This is the guest side implementation. Is this applicable for all versions of qemu virtio In the host the OVS is run in a Kolla inside container and it is in non-dpdk mode. The tcpdump from the physical interface shows that the packet is not modified from the way it was sent by the guest. After the checksum errors the TCP stack of the guest sends the MTU sized packet for which the TSO failed and this time the checksum at the client side did not fail. In the client I had disabled GRO and LRO, so that we compute checksum on each frame. Also the checksum errors are seen only when the VMs communicating are present in different physical host, when VMs in same host I do not see any checksum errors. Please let me know if such issues were seen earlier and any pointers on debugging further would be helpful. Thanks, Param