DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Zhou, YidingX" <yidingx.zhou@intel.com>
To: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] net/iavf: revert fix VLAN insertion
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 02:42:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DM5PR1101MB2107D10739517AE735FD3A5F852D9@DM5PR1101MB2107.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <30c5f90a-acd5-eacb-7ad9-8e8e6819d67d@redhat.com>



> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 4:53 PM
> >> To: Zhou, YidingX <yidingx.zhou@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/iavf: revert fix VLAN insertion
> >>
> >> On 19/10/2022 08:54, Yiding Zhou wrote:
> >>> When the kernel driver tells to use the L2TAG2 field for VLAN
> >>> insertion, the context descriptor needs to be used. There is an
> >>> issue on the vector Tx path, because it does not support the context
> descriptor.
> >>>
> >>> The previous commit forces to select normal path to avoid the above
> >>> issue, but it results in a performance loss of around 40%. So it
> >>> needs to be reverted and the original issue needed to be fixed by rework.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thank you, that is a much clearer explanation.
> >>
> >> Now on the approach, the commit being reverted says:
> >> "When the driver tells the VF to insert VLAN tag using the L2TAG2
> >> field, vector Tx path does not use Tx context descriptor and would
> >> cause VLAN tag inserted into the wrong location."
> >>
> >> So it means this revert is solving a performance regression, but
> >> re-introducing the functional issue above.
> >>
> >> Is there a correct fix for the original issue sent that can be
> >> applied too? If not, wouldn't it be better to wait until it is before doing the
> revert?
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, there is no correct fix yet.
> > We plan to support context descriptor on vector path to fix the
> > original issue, It may take more time and cannot be completed within this
> cycle.
> >
> 
> ok, but you didn't answer the second question.
> 
> "When the driver tells the VF to insert VLAN tag using the L2TAG2 field, vector
> Tx path does not use Tx context descriptor and would cause VLAN tag inserted
> into the wrong location."
> 
> Please explain your justification for (re-)introducing this bug?
> 
> Why is better to get (corrupt?) packets with incorrect VLAN tags than lose
> performance for this case? Or have I mis-interpreted the patches.
> 
> 
Thanks for your review.
I agree with you.  It should not re-introduce functional issue .
This revert is not needed. I will resubmit a new patch for the performance loss.

> >>> To reverts
> >>> commit 0d58caa7d6d1 ("net/iavf: fix VLAN insertion")
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 0d58caa7d6d1 ("net/iavf: fix VLAN insertion")
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yiding Zhou <yidingx.zhou@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx_vec_common.h | 3 ---
> >>>    1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx_vec_common.h
> >>> b/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx_vec_common.h
> >>> index 4ab22c6b2b..a59cb2ceee 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx_vec_common.h
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx_vec_common.h
> >>> @@ -253,9 +253,6 @@ iavf_tx_vec_queue_default(struct iavf_tx_queue
> *txq)
> >>>    	if (txq->offloads & IAVF_TX_NO_VECTOR_FLAGS)
> >>>    		return -1;
> >>>
> >>> -	if (txq->vlan_flag == IAVF_TX_FLAGS_VLAN_TAG_LOC_L2TAG2)
> >>> -		return -1;
> >>> -
> >>>    	if (txq->offloads & IAVF_TX_VECTOR_OFFLOAD)
> >>>    		return IAVF_VECTOR_OFFLOAD_PATH;
> >>>
> >


  reply	other threads:[~2022-10-21  2:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-18 10:26 [PATCH] " Yiding Zhou
2022-10-18 12:17 ` Kevin Traynor
2022-10-19  7:54 ` [PATCH v2] " Yiding Zhou
2022-10-19  8:53   ` Kevin Traynor
2022-10-20  1:33     ` Zhou, YidingX
2022-10-20  7:47       ` Kevin Traynor
2022-10-21  2:42         ` Zhou, YidingX [this message]
     [not found]           ` <CY4PR1101MB21039FCA7958A8B49BF5521885389@CY4PR1101MB2103.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
     [not found]             ` <322c348e-3461-c7ab-a845-2782ffce5ef9@redhat.com>
2022-11-03 12:43               ` Kevin Traynor
     [not found]               ` <MWHPR11MB18863EA1EEE5DA7452AF7899E5389@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
2022-11-03 14:42                 ` Kevin Traynor
2022-11-04  6:10 ` [PATCH v3] " Yiding Zhou
2022-11-08  9:26   ` Zhou, YidingX
2022-11-09  0:45   ` Zhang, Qi Z
2022-11-10  2:10     ` Zhou, YidingX
2022-11-10  9:57       ` Zhang, Qi Z
2022-11-11  8:18 ` [PATCH v4] " Yiding Zhou
2022-11-13 16:30 ` [PATCH v5] " Yiding Zhou
2022-11-14  0:52   ` Zhang, Qi Z

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=DM5PR1101MB2107D10739517AE735FD3A5F852D9@DM5PR1101MB2107.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=yidingx.zhou@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ktraynor@redhat.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).