From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A531396 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:29:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2017 02:29:18 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,392,1500966000"; d="scan'208";a="1172136048" Received: from fmsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.201]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2017 02:29:17 -0700 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.153) by FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 02:29:17 -0700 Received: from shsmsx151.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.98]) by SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.168]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:29:15 +0800 From: "Hu, Jiayu" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Kavanagh, Mark B" , "Tan, Jianfeng" Thread-Topic: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support Thread-Index: AQHTLTYKKvGbzhXn4Uirw+Dd+ZTvGqK0E/LA Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:29:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1504598270-60080-1-git-send-email-jiayu.hu@intel.com> <1505184211-36728-1-git-send-email-jiayu.hu@intel.com> <1505184211-36728-3-git-send-email-jiayu.hu@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F249FE8@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170913104407.GA57844@dpdk15.sh.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F24AACB@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170914060705.GA60858@dpdk15.sh.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F24ADD2@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772584F24ADD2@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.0.116 dlp-reaction: no-action x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiM2VjMzkwNDctYWU2Ni00YTI0LThiYjItYWJiNjhjMmY5ZjJlIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjUuOS4zIiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IndGR2I4dDFiSjN3eFJnUlJweEh2Tm9YSDRrU215eDMzRXJVUXZTclJIMkU9In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:29:19 -0000 Hi Konstantin, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:47 PM > To: Hu, Jiayu > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kavanagh, Mark B ; Tan, > Jianfeng > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support >=20 > Hi Jiayu, >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hu, Jiayu > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 7:07 AM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kavanagh, Mark B ; Tan, > Jianfeng > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support > > > > Hi Konstantin, > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 06:10:37AM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > > Hi Jiayu, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 12:18 PM > > > > > > To: Hu, Jiayu ; dev@dpdk.org > > > > > > Cc: Kavanagh, Mark B ; Tan, Jianfeng > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support > > > > > > > > > > > > > result, when all of its GSOed segments are freed, the packet = is > freed > > > > > > > automatically. > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.c b/lib/librte_gso/rte_gs= o.c > > > > > > > index dda50ee..95f6ea6 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.c > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.c > > > > > > > @@ -33,18 +33,53 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #include > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +#include > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > #include "rte_gso.h" > > > > > > > +#include "gso_common.h" > > > > > > > +#include "gso_tcp4.h" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int > > > > > > > rte_gso_segment(struct rte_mbuf *pkt, > > > > > > > - struct rte_gso_ctx gso_ctx __rte_unused, > > > > > > > + struct rte_gso_ctx gso_ctx, > > > > > > > struct rte_mbuf **pkts_out, > > > > > > > uint16_t nb_pkts_out) > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > + struct rte_mempool *direct_pool, *indirect_pool; > > > > > > > + struct rte_mbuf *pkt_seg; > > > > > > > + uint16_t gso_size; > > > > > > > + uint8_t ipid_delta; > > > > > > > + int ret =3D 1; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > if (pkt =3D=3D NULL || pkts_out =3D=3D NULL || nb_pkts_out = < 1) > > > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - pkts_out[0] =3D pkt; > > > > > > > + if (gso_ctx.gso_size >=3D pkt->pkt_len || > > > > > > > + (pkt->packet_type & gso_ctx.gso_types) !=3D > > > > > > > + pkt->packet_type) { > > > > > > > + pkts_out[0] =3D pkt; > > > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + direct_pool =3D gso_ctx.direct_pool; > > > > > > > + indirect_pool =3D gso_ctx.indirect_pool; > > > > > > > + gso_size =3D gso_ctx.gso_size; > > > > > > > + ipid_delta =3D gso_ctx.ipid_flag =3D=3D RTE_GSO_IPID_INCREA= SE; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + if (is_ipv4_tcp(pkt->packet_type)) { > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably we need here: > > > > > > If (is_ipv4_tcp(pkt->packet_type) && (gso_ctx->gso_types & > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO) !=3D 0) {... > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, actually it probably should be: > > > > > If (pkt->ol_flags & (PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_IPV4) =3D=3D PKT_TX_= IPV4 > && > > > > > (gso_ctx->gso_types & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO) !=3D 0) {... > > > > > > > > I don't quite understand why the GSO library should be aware if the= TSO > > > > flag is set or not. Applications can query device TSO capability be= fore > > > > they call the GSO library. Do I misundertsand anything? > > > > > > > > Additionally, we don't need to check if the packet is a TCP/IPv4 pa= cket > here? > > > > > > Well, right now PMD we doesn't rely on ptype to figure out what type= of > packet and > > > what TX offload have to be performed. > > > Instead it looks at TX part of ol_flags, and > > > My thought was that as what we doing is actually TSO in SW, it would = be > good > > > to use the same API here too. > > > Also with that approach, by setting ol_flags properly user can use th= e > same gso_ctx and still > > > specify what segmentation to perform on a per-packet basis. > > > > > > Alternative way is to rely on ptype to distinguish should segmentatio= n be > performed on that package or not. > > > The only advantage I see here is that if someone would like to add GS= O > for some new protocol, > > > he wouldn't need to introduce new TX flag value for mbuf.ol_flags. > > > Though he still would need to update TX_OFFLOAD_* capabilities and > probably packet_type definitions. > > > > > > So from my perspective first variant (use HW TSO API) is more plausib= le. > > > Wonder what is your and Mark opinions here? > > > > In the first choice, you mean: > > the GSO library uses gso_ctx->gso_types and mbuf->ol_flags to call a > specific GSO > > segmentation function (e.g. gso_tcp4_segment(), gso_tunnel_xxx()) for > each input packet. > > Applications should parse the packet type, and set an exactly correct > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO > > flag to gso_types and ol_flags according to the packet type. That is, t= he > value of gso_types > > is on a per-packet basis. Using gso_ctx->gso_types and mbuf->ol_flags a= t > the same time > > is because that DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO only tells tunnelling type and the > inner L4 type, and > > we need to know L3 type by ol_flags. With this design, HW segmentation > and SW segmentation > > are indeed consistent. > > > > If I understand it correctly, applications need to set 'ol_flags =3D > PKT_TX_IPV4' and > > 'gso_types =3D DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_TNL_TSO' for a > "ether+ipv4+udp+vxlan+ether+ipv4+ > > tcp+payload" packet. But PKT_TX_IPV4 just present the inner L3 type for > tunneled packet. > > How about the outer L3 type? Always assume the inner and the outer L3 > type are the same? >=20 > It think that for that case you'll have to set in ol_flags: >=20 > PKT_TX_IPV4 | PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 | PKT_TX_TUNNEL_VXLAN | > PKT_TX_TCP_SEG OK, so it means PKT_TX_TCP_SEG is also used for tunneled TSO. The GSO library doesn't need gso_types anymore. The first choice makes HW and SW segmentation are totally the same. Applications just need to parse the packet and set proper ol_flags, and the GSO library uses ol_flags to decide which segmentation function to use. I think it's better than the second choice which depending on ptype to choose segmentation function. Jiayu >=20 > Konstantin >=20 > > > > Jiayu > > > Konstantin