DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
@ 2020-05-15 11:12 Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
  2020-05-18  7:24 ` Olivier Matz
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) @ 2020-05-15 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dev

Hi,

I'm using i40e vf, dpdk 18.11, x86_64 CPU (rx function in use is i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2)
When enable hw vlan strip:

  *   If packet fit in one mbuf segment, the vlan_tci field is correct
  *   If packets are stored in several mbuf segment, the vlan_tci of last segment is correct, vlan_tci of other segments are invalid

It seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts has correctly set the vlan_tci, by calling
i40e_rxd_to_vlan_tci(first_seg, &rxd);

Is this a bug in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2?
(I didn't find setting vlan_tci for first segment, but it's a bit difficult for me to understand codes in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2, so I'm not quite sure)
I checked the latest dpdk version 20.02 http://lxr.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx2.c#L791
But seems no change for this.

Any comment please?
Thank you.


ps lscpu log in case helpful:
[cranuser2@controller-3 ~]$ lscpu
Architecture:        x86_64
CPU op-mode(s):      32-bit, 64-bit
Byte Order:          Little Endian
CPU(s):              20
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-19
Thread(s) per core:  1
Core(s) per socket:  20
Socket(s):           1
NUMA node(s):        1
Vendor ID:           GenuineIntel
CPU family:          6
Model:               85
Model name:          Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6148 CPU @ 2.40GHz
Stepping:            4
CPU MHz:             1903.044
CPU max MHz:         2400.0000
CPU min MHz:         1000.0000
BogoMIPS:            4800.00
Virtualization:      VT-x
L1d cache:           32K
L1i cache:           32K
L2 cache:            1024K
L3 cache:            28160K
NUMA node0 CPU(s):   0-19
Flags:               fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc art arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc cpuid aperfmperf pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 sdbg fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid dca sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm 3dnowprefetch cpuid_fault epb cat_l3 cdp_l3 invpcid_single pti intel_ppin ssbd mba ibrs ibpb stibp tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid ept_ad fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 hle avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid rtm cqm mpx rdt_a avx512f avx512dq rdseed adx smap clflushopt clwb intel_pt avx512cd avx512bw avx512vl xsaveopt xsavec xgetbv1 xsaves cqm_llc cqm_occup_llc cqm_mbm_total cqm_mbm_local dtherm arat pln pts pku ospke md_clear flush_l1d



Best regards
Yan Xiaoping


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
  2020-05-15 11:12 [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
@ 2020-05-18  7:24 ` Olivier Matz
  2020-05-18  8:31   ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Olivier Matz @ 2020-05-18  7:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou); +Cc: dev

Hi,

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:12:27AM +0000, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm using i40e vf, dpdk 18.11, x86_64 CPU (rx function in use is i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2)
> When enable hw vlan strip:
> 
>   *   If packet fit in one mbuf segment, the vlan_tci field is correct
>   *   If packets are stored in several mbuf segment, the vlan_tci of last segment is correct, vlan_tci of other segments are invalid
> 
> It seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts has correctly set the vlan_tci, by calling
> i40e_rxd_to_vlan_tci(first_seg, &rxd);
> 
> Is this a bug in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2?
> (I didn't find setting vlan_tci for first segment, but it's a bit difficult for me to understand codes in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2, so I'm not quite sure)
> I checked the latest dpdk version 20.02 http://lxr.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx2.c#L791
> But seems no change for this.
> 
> Any comment please?
> [...]

I don't know about the i40e driver, but I can confirm that the vlan tci
flag should be in the first segment, and not in the next ones.

I suggest to CC i40e driver maintainers.

Regards,
Olivier

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
  2020-05-18  7:24 ` Olivier Matz
@ 2020-05-18  8:31   ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
  2020-05-19  7:00     ` Jeff Guo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) @ 2020-05-18  8:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: beilei.xing, jia.guo; +Cc: dev, Olivier Matz

Hi Beilei & Jia,

I got your name from the MAINTAINERS  for Intel i40e.
Could you help to have a look at the issue, described in my previous mail?

Thank you.

Best regards
Yan Xiaoping

-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> 
Sent: 2020年5月18日 15:24
To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf

Hi,

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:12:27AM +0000, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm using i40e vf, dpdk 18.11, x86_64 CPU (rx function in use is 
> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2)
> When enable hw vlan strip:
> 
>   *   If packet fit in one mbuf segment, the vlan_tci field is correct
>   *   If packets are stored in several mbuf segment, the vlan_tci of last segment is correct, vlan_tci of other segments are invalid
> 
> It seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts has correctly set the vlan_tci, by 
> calling i40e_rxd_to_vlan_tci(first_seg, &rxd);
> 
> Is this a bug in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2?
> (I didn't find setting vlan_tci for first segment, but it's a bit 
> difficult for me to understand codes in 
> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2, so I'm not quite sure) I checked 
> the latest dpdk version 20.02 
> http://lxr.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_
> avx2.c#L791
> But seems no change for this.
> 
> Any comment please?
> [...]

I don't know about the i40e driver, but I can confirm that the vlan tci flag should be in the first segment, and not in the next ones.

I suggest to CC i40e driver maintainers.

Regards,
Olivier

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
  2020-05-18  8:31   ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
@ 2020-05-19  7:00     ` Jeff Guo
  2020-05-19  8:31       ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Guo @ 2020-05-19  7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou), beilei.xing; +Cc: dev, Olivier Matz

hi, xiaoping

On 5/18/2020 4:31 PM, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> Hi Beilei & Jia,
>
> I got your name from the MAINTAINERS  for Intel i40e.
> Could you help to have a look at the issue, described in my previous mail?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards
> Yan Xiaoping
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Sent: 2020年5月18日 15:24
> To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:12:27AM +0000, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm using i40e vf, dpdk 18.11, x86_64 CPU (rx function in use is
>> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2)
>> When enable hw vlan strip:
>>
>>    *   If packet fit in one mbuf segment, the vlan_tci field is correct
>>    *   If packets are stored in several mbuf segment, the vlan_tci of last segment is correct, vlan_tci of other segments are invalid
>>
>> It seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts has correctly set the vlan_tci, by
>> calling i40e_rxd_to_vlan_tci(first_seg, &rxd);
>>
>> Is this a bug in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2?
>> (I didn't find setting vlan_tci for first segment, but it's a bit
>> difficult for me to understand codes in
>> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2, so I'm not quite sure) I checked
>> the latest dpdk version 20.02
>> http://lxr.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_
>> avx2.c#L791
>> But seems no change for this.
>>
>> Any comment please?
>> [...]
> I don't know about the i40e driver, but I can confirm that the vlan tci flag should be in the first segment, and not in the next ones.
>
> I suggest to CC i40e driver maintainers.
>
> Regards,
> Olivier


On one hand, as Olivier said that vlan tci flag should be in the first 
segment, and on the other hands, vlan_tci do process in 
"_recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2" when use 256 instinct

to process the descriptor with mbuf,  you could check how to process the 
vlan_flags_shuf and blend it into the mbuf.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
  2020-05-19  7:00     ` Jeff Guo
@ 2020-05-19  8:31       ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
  2020-05-19 12:27         ` Jeff Guo
  2020-05-19 12:41         ` Zhang, Qi Z
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) @ 2020-05-19  8:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Guo, beilei.xing; +Cc: dev, Olivier Matz

Hi,

I tried to use gdb to print the rx descriptor, and it turned out that only the rxd for the last segment has correct l2tag1 value. 
Test step: ping xx.xx.xx.xx -s 2500,   from a vlan interface with vlan id 1901, MTU 9000. (this will sends 1 packet, and needs two mbuf segments to receive, length of 1st mbuf segment is 2176(mbuf size of my dpdk application), length of 2nd mbuf segment is 366)

Rx descriptor printed with gdb:
Breakpoint 2 at 0x7ffff5efa4bb: file /usr/src/debug/dpdk-18.11.1-2.nok6.wf31.x86_64/package/dpdk/dpdk-18.11/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx2.c, line 496.
(gdb) print *(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+1)
$4 = {read = {pkt_addr = 14858615587319906304, hdr_addr = 598164390293517, rsvd1 = 0,
    rsvd2 = 0}, wb = {qword0 = {lo_dword = {mirr_fcoe = {mirroring_status = 0,
          fcoe_ctx_id = 0}, l2tag1 = 73}, hi_dword = {rss = 3459541031,
        fcoe_param = 3459541031, fd_id = 3459541031}}, qword1 = {
      status_error_len = 598164390293517}, qword2 = {ext_status = 0, rsvd = 0,
      l2tag2_1 = 0, l2tag2_2 = 0}, qword3 = {lo_dword = {flex_bytes_lo = 0,
        pe_status = 0}, hi_dword = {flex_bytes_hi = 0, fd_id = 0}}}}
(gdb) print *(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+2)
$5 = {read = {pkt_addr = 14858615587439706112, hdr_addr = 100635378724879, rsvd1 = 0,
    rsvd2 = 0}, wb = {qword0 = {lo_dword = {mirr_fcoe = {mirroring_status = 0,
          fcoe_ctx_id = 0}, l2tag1 = 1901}, hi_dword = {rss = 3459541031,
        fcoe_param = 3459541031, fd_id = 3459541031}}, qword1 = {
      status_error_len = 100635378724879}, qword2 = {ext_status = 0, rsvd = 0,
      l2tag2_1 = 0, l2tag2_2 = 0}, qword3 = {lo_dword = {flex_bytes_lo = 0,
        pe_status = 0}, hi_dword = {flex_bytes_hi = 0, fd_id = 0}}}}

With formula:		length = (qword1 & I40E_RXD_QW1_LENGTH_PBUF_MASK) >> I40E_RXD_QW1_LENGTH_PBUF_SHIFT;  (qword1 is status_error_len in gdb printout)
I can get length of first segment(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+1) is 2176, and length of second segment(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+2) is 366, which proves they are the mbuf segments to receive.
However we can see the l2tag1 of first segment is 73(invalid), l2tag1 of second segment is 1901(valid).

It means either HW should be modified to fill l2tag1 correctly for each every segment, or _recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2 should be modified to read l2tag1 of last segment?
PS: it seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts use the l2tag1 of last rxd (to set vlan tci of first segment), don't know it is by accident(convenience) or by purpose.

Do you agree on my analysis?
If my analysis is correct, is it possible for you to help make a sw patch, because I'm not familiar with this vec avx code. 

Best regards
Yan Xiaoping

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Guo <jia.guo@intel.com> 
Sent: 2020年5月19日 15:00
To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>; beilei.xing@intel.com
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf

hi, xiaoping

On 5/18/2020 4:31 PM, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> Hi Beilei & Jia,
>
> I got your name from the MAINTAINERS  for Intel i40e.
> Could you help to have a look at the issue, described in my previous mail?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards
> Yan Xiaoping
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Sent: 2020年5月18日 15:24
> To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:12:27AM +0000, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm using i40e vf, dpdk 18.11, x86_64 CPU (rx function in use is
>> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2)
>> When enable hw vlan strip:
>>
>>    *   If packet fit in one mbuf segment, the vlan_tci field is correct
>>    *   If packets are stored in several mbuf segment, the vlan_tci of last segment is correct, vlan_tci of other segments are invalid
>>
>> It seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts has correctly set the vlan_tci, by 
>> calling i40e_rxd_to_vlan_tci(first_seg, &rxd);
>>
>> Is this a bug in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2?
>> (I didn't find setting vlan_tci for first segment, but it's a bit 
>> difficult for me to understand codes in 
>> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2, so I'm not quite sure) I checked 
>> the latest dpdk version 20.02 
>> http://lxr.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec
>> _
>> avx2.c#L791
>> But seems no change for this.
>>
>> Any comment please?
>> [...]
> I don't know about the i40e driver, but I can confirm that the vlan tci flag should be in the first segment, and not in the next ones.
>
> I suggest to CC i40e driver maintainers.
>
> Regards,
> Olivier


On one hand, as Olivier said that vlan tci flag should be in the first segment, and on the other hands, vlan_tci do process in "_recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2" when use 256 instinct

to process the descriptor with mbuf,  you could check how to process the vlan_flags_shuf and blend it into the mbuf.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
  2020-05-19  8:31       ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
@ 2020-05-19 12:27         ` Jeff Guo
  2020-05-19 12:41         ` Zhang, Qi Z
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Guo @ 2020-05-19 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou), beilei.xing; +Cc: dev, Olivier Matz

hi, xiaoping

Base on the HW behaviors, either i40e normal recv or i40e vector recv 
should use the offload flags of the last rxd to resign to the first 
segment, then restore the mbuf to the recv packets, i am not sure if 
this could answer your question, Anyway, you could use below quick check 
to see if it could help.

+++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ reassemble_packets(struct i40e_rx_queue *rxq, struct rte_mbuf **rx_bufs,
                         if (!split_flags[buf_idx]) {
                                 /* it's the last packet of the set */
                                 start->hash = end->hash;
+                               start->vlan_tci = end->vlan_tci;
                                 start->ol_flags = end->ol_flags;
                                 /* we need to strip crc for the whole packet */
                                 start->pkt_len -= rxq->crc_len;

On 5/19/2020 4:31 PM, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to use gdb to print the rx descriptor, and it turned out that only the rxd for the last segment has correct l2tag1 value.
> Test step: ping xx.xx.xx.xx -s 2500,   from a vlan interface with vlan id 1901, MTU 9000. (this will sends 1 packet, and needs two mbuf segments to receive, length of 1st mbuf segment is 2176(mbuf size of my dpdk application), length of 2nd mbuf segment is 366)
>
> Rx descriptor printed with gdb:
> Breakpoint 2 at 0x7ffff5efa4bb: file /usr/src/debug/dpdk-18.11.1-2.nok6.wf31.x86_64/package/dpdk/dpdk-18.11/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx2.c, line 496.
> (gdb) print *(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+1)
> $4 = {read = {pkt_addr = 14858615587319906304, hdr_addr = 598164390293517, rsvd1 = 0,
>      rsvd2 = 0}, wb = {qword0 = {lo_dword = {mirr_fcoe = {mirroring_status = 0,
>            fcoe_ctx_id = 0}, l2tag1 = 73}, hi_dword = {rss = 3459541031,
>          fcoe_param = 3459541031, fd_id = 3459541031}}, qword1 = {
>        status_error_len = 598164390293517}, qword2 = {ext_status = 0, rsvd = 0,
>        l2tag2_1 = 0, l2tag2_2 = 0}, qword3 = {lo_dword = {flex_bytes_lo = 0,
>          pe_status = 0}, hi_dword = {flex_bytes_hi = 0, fd_id = 0}}}}
> (gdb) print *(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+2)
> $5 = {read = {pkt_addr = 14858615587439706112, hdr_addr = 100635378724879, rsvd1 = 0,
>      rsvd2 = 0}, wb = {qword0 = {lo_dword = {mirr_fcoe = {mirroring_status = 0,
>            fcoe_ctx_id = 0}, l2tag1 = 1901}, hi_dword = {rss = 3459541031,
>          fcoe_param = 3459541031, fd_id = 3459541031}}, qword1 = {
>        status_error_len = 100635378724879}, qword2 = {ext_status = 0, rsvd = 0,
>        l2tag2_1 = 0, l2tag2_2 = 0}, qword3 = {lo_dword = {flex_bytes_lo = 0,
>          pe_status = 0}, hi_dword = {flex_bytes_hi = 0, fd_id = 0}}}}
>
> With formula:		length = (qword1 & I40E_RXD_QW1_LENGTH_PBUF_MASK) >> I40E_RXD_QW1_LENGTH_PBUF_SHIFT;  (qword1 is status_error_len in gdb printout)
> I can get length of first segment(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+1) is 2176, and length of second segment(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+2) is 366, which proves they are the mbuf segments to receive.
> However we can see the l2tag1 of first segment is 73(invalid), l2tag1 of second segment is 1901(valid).
>
> It means either HW should be modified to fill l2tag1 correctly for each every segment, or _recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2 should be modified to read l2tag1 of last segment?
> PS: it seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts use the l2tag1 of last rxd (to set vlan tci of first segment), don't know it is by accident(convenience) or by purpose.
>
> Do you agree on my analysis?
> If my analysis is correct, is it possible for you to help make a sw patch, because I'm not familiar with this vec avx code.
>
> Best regards
> Yan Xiaoping
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Guo <jia.guo@intel.com>
> Sent: 2020年5月19日 15:00
> To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>; beilei.xing@intel.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
>
> hi, xiaoping
>
> On 5/18/2020 4:31 PM, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
>> Hi Beilei & Jia,
>>
>> I got your name from the MAINTAINERS  for Intel i40e.
>> Could you help to have a look at the issue, described in my previous mail?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Yan Xiaoping
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
>> Sent: 2020年5月18日 15:24
>> To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:12:27AM +0000, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm using i40e vf, dpdk 18.11, x86_64 CPU (rx function in use is
>>> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2)
>>> When enable hw vlan strip:
>>>
>>>     *   If packet fit in one mbuf segment, the vlan_tci field is correct
>>>     *   If packets are stored in several mbuf segment, the vlan_tci of last segment is correct, vlan_tci of other segments are invalid
>>>
>>> It seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts has correctly set the vlan_tci, by
>>> calling i40e_rxd_to_vlan_tci(first_seg, &rxd);
>>>
>>> Is this a bug in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2?
>>> (I didn't find setting vlan_tci for first segment, but it's a bit
>>> difficult for me to understand codes in
>>> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2, so I'm not quite sure) I checked
>>> the latest dpdk version 20.02
>>> http://lxr.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec
>>> _
>>> avx2.c#L791
>>> But seems no change for this.
>>>
>>> Any comment please?
>>> [...]
>> I don't know about the i40e driver, but I can confirm that the vlan tci flag should be in the first segment, and not in the next ones.
>>
>> I suggest to CC i40e driver maintainers.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Olivier
>
> On one hand, as Olivier said that vlan tci flag should be in the first segment, and on the other hands, vlan_tci do process in "_recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2" when use 256 instinct
>
> to process the descriptor with mbuf,  you could check how to process the vlan_flags_shuf and blend it into the mbuf.
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
  2020-05-19  8:31       ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
  2020-05-19 12:27         ` Jeff Guo
@ 2020-05-19 12:41         ` Zhang, Qi Z
  2020-05-20  7:42           ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Zhang, Qi Z @ 2020-05-19 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou), Guo, Jia, Xing, Beilei
  Cc: dev, Olivier Matz

Hi Xiaoping:

	According to i40e datasheet, for packet with multiple buffer, the L2TAG should only be valid on last Rx descriptor.
	So it is identical with what you observed and it looks like a bug in the vector path.
	Could you try if below change can fix the issue?

--- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h
+++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ reassemble_packets(struct i40e_rx_queue *rxq, struct rte_mbuf **rx_bufs,
                                /* it's the last packet of the set */
                                start->hash = end->hash;
                                start->ol_flags = end->ol_flags;
+                               start->vlan_tci = end->vlan_tci;
                                /* we need to strip crc for the whole packet */
                                start->pkt_len -= rxq->crc_len;
                                if (end->data_len > rxq->crc_len

Thanks
Qi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Yan, Xiaoping (NSB -
> CN/Hangzhou)
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 4:32 PM
> To: Guo, Jia <jia.guo@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I tried to use gdb to print the rx descriptor, and it turned out that only the
> rxd for the last segment has correct l2tag1 value.
> Test step: ping xx.xx.xx.xx -s 2500,   from a vlan interface with vlan id 1901,
> MTU 9000. (this will sends 1 packet, and needs two mbuf segments to
> receive, length of 1st mbuf segment is 2176(mbuf size of my dpdk
> application), length of 2nd mbuf segment is 366)
> 
> Rx descriptor printed with gdb:
> Breakpoint 2 at 0x7ffff5efa4bb: file
> /usr/src/debug/dpdk-18.11.1-2.nok6.wf31.x86_64/package/dpdk/dpdk-18.1
> 1/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx2.c, line 496.
> (gdb) print *(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+1)
> $4 = {read = {pkt_addr = 14858615587319906304, hdr_addr =
> 598164390293517, rsvd1 = 0,
>     rsvd2 = 0}, wb = {qword0 = {lo_dword = {mirr_fcoe = {mirroring_status
> = 0,
>           fcoe_ctx_id = 0}, l2tag1 = 73}, hi_dword = {rss = 3459541031,
>         fcoe_param = 3459541031, fd_id = 3459541031}}, qword1 = {
>       status_error_len = 598164390293517}, qword2 = {ext_status = 0,
> rsvd = 0,
>       l2tag2_1 = 0, l2tag2_2 = 0}, qword3 = {lo_dword = {flex_bytes_lo = 0,
>         pe_status = 0}, hi_dword = {flex_bytes_hi = 0, fd_id = 0}}}}
> (gdb) print *(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+2)
> $5 = {read = {pkt_addr = 14858615587439706112, hdr_addr =
> 100635378724879, rsvd1 = 0,
>     rsvd2 = 0}, wb = {qword0 = {lo_dword = {mirr_fcoe = {mirroring_status
> = 0,
>           fcoe_ctx_id = 0}, l2tag1 = 1901}, hi_dword = {rss = 3459541031,
>         fcoe_param = 3459541031, fd_id = 3459541031}}, qword1 = {
>       status_error_len = 100635378724879}, qword2 = {ext_status = 0,
> rsvd = 0,
>       l2tag2_1 = 0, l2tag2_2 = 0}, qword3 = {lo_dword = {flex_bytes_lo = 0,
>         pe_status = 0}, hi_dword = {flex_bytes_hi = 0, fd_id = 0}}}}
> 
> With formula:		length = (qword1 &
> I40E_RXD_QW1_LENGTH_PBUF_MASK) >>
> I40E_RXD_QW1_LENGTH_PBUF_SHIFT;  (qword1 is status_error_len in gdb
> printout)
> I can get length of first segment(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+1) is 2176, and
> length of second segment(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+2) is 366, which proves
> they are the mbuf segments to receive.
> However we can see the l2tag1 of first segment is 73(invalid), l2tag1 of
> second segment is 1901(valid).
> 
> It means either HW should be modified to fill l2tag1 correctly for each every
> segment, or _recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2 should be modified to read l2tag1 of
> last segment?
> PS: it seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts use the l2tag1 of last rxd (to set vlan
> tci of first segment), don't know it is by accident(convenience) or by purpose.
> 
> Do you agree on my analysis?
> If my analysis is correct, is it possible for you to help make a sw patch,
> because I'm not familiar with this vec avx code.
> 
> Best regards
> Yan Xiaoping
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Guo <jia.guo@intel.com>
> Sent: 2020年5月19日 15:00
> To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>;
> beilei.xing@intel.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
> 
> hi, xiaoping
> 
> On 5/18/2020 4:31 PM, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> > Hi Beilei & Jia,
> >
> > I got your name from the MAINTAINERS  for Intel i40e.
> > Could you help to have a look at the issue, described in my previous mail?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Yan Xiaoping
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> > Sent: 2020年5月18日 15:24
> > To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:12:27AM +0000, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB -
> CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm using i40e vf, dpdk 18.11, x86_64 CPU (rx function in use is
> >> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2)
> >> When enable hw vlan strip:
> >>
> >>    *   If packet fit in one mbuf segment, the vlan_tci field is correct
> >>    *   If packets are stored in several mbuf segment, the vlan_tci of last
> segment is correct, vlan_tci of other segments are invalid
> >>
> >> It seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts has correctly set the vlan_tci, by
> >> calling i40e_rxd_to_vlan_tci(first_seg, &rxd);
> >>
> >> Is this a bug in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2?
> >> (I didn't find setting vlan_tci for first segment, but it's a bit
> >> difficult for me to understand codes in
> >> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2, so I'm not quite sure) I checked
> >> the latest dpdk version 20.02
> >> http://lxr.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec
> >> _
> >> avx2.c#L791
> >> But seems no change for this.
> >>
> >> Any comment please?
> >> [...]
> > I don't know about the i40e driver, but I can confirm that the vlan tci flag
> should be in the first segment, and not in the next ones.
> >
> > I suggest to CC i40e driver maintainers.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Olivier
> 
> 
> On one hand, as Olivier said that vlan tci flag should be in the first segment,
> and on the other hands, vlan_tci do process in "_recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2"
> when use 256 instinct
> 
> to process the descriptor with mbuf,  you could check how to process the
> vlan_flags_shuf and blend it into the mbuf.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
  2020-05-19 12:41         ` Zhang, Qi Z
@ 2020-05-20  7:42           ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
  2020-05-20  7:48             ` Zhang, Qi Z
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) @ 2020-05-20  7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zhang, Qi Z, Guo, Jia, Xing, Beilei; +Cc: dev, Olivier Matz

Hi,

I tried the change, and it solved the problem.
Should I submit the change to github? Or you will do that?
Thank you.

Best regards
Yan Xiaoping

-----Original Message-----
From: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com> 
Sent: 2020年5月19日 20:42
To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>; Guo, Jia <jia.guo@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf

Hi Xiaoping:

	According to i40e datasheet, for packet with multiple buffer, the L2TAG should only be valid on last Rx descriptor.
	So it is identical with what you observed and it looks like a bug in the vector path.
	Could you try if below change can fix the issue?

--- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h
+++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ reassemble_packets(struct i40e_rx_queue *rxq, struct rte_mbuf **rx_bufs,
                                /* it's the last packet of the set */
                                start->hash = end->hash;
                                start->ol_flags = end->ol_flags;
+                               start->vlan_tci = end->vlan_tci;
                                /* we need to strip crc for the whole packet */
                                start->pkt_len -= rxq->crc_len;
                                if (end->data_len > rxq->crc_len

Thanks
Qi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Yan, Xiaoping (NSB -
> CN/Hangzhou)
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 4:32 PM
> To: Guo, Jia <jia.guo@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I tried to use gdb to print the rx descriptor, and it turned out that 
> only the rxd for the last segment has correct l2tag1 value.
> Test step: ping xx.xx.xx.xx -s 2500,   from a vlan interface with vlan id 1901,
> MTU 9000. (this will sends 1 packet, and needs two mbuf segments to 
> receive, length of 1st mbuf segment is 2176(mbuf size of my dpdk 
> application), length of 2nd mbuf segment is 366)
> 
> Rx descriptor printed with gdb:
> Breakpoint 2 at 0x7ffff5efa4bb: file
> /usr/src/debug/dpdk-18.11.1-2.nok6.wf31.x86_64/package/dpdk/dpdk-18.1
> 1/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx2.c, line 496.
> (gdb) print *(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+1)
> $4 = {read = {pkt_addr = 14858615587319906304, hdr_addr = 
> 598164390293517, rsvd1 = 0,
>     rsvd2 = 0}, wb = {qword0 = {lo_dword = {mirr_fcoe = 
> {mirroring_status = 0,
>           fcoe_ctx_id = 0}, l2tag1 = 73}, hi_dword = {rss = 3459541031,
>         fcoe_param = 3459541031, fd_id = 3459541031}}, qword1 = {
>       status_error_len = 598164390293517}, qword2 = {ext_status = 0, 
> rsvd = 0,
>       l2tag2_1 = 0, l2tag2_2 = 0}, qword3 = {lo_dword = {flex_bytes_lo = 0,
>         pe_status = 0}, hi_dword = {flex_bytes_hi = 0, fd_id = 0}}}}
> (gdb) print *(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+2)
> $5 = {read = {pkt_addr = 14858615587439706112, hdr_addr = 
> 100635378724879, rsvd1 = 0,
>     rsvd2 = 0}, wb = {qword0 = {lo_dword = {mirr_fcoe = 
> {mirroring_status = 0,
>           fcoe_ctx_id = 0}, l2tag1 = 1901}, hi_dword = {rss = 3459541031,
>         fcoe_param = 3459541031, fd_id = 3459541031}}, qword1 = {
>       status_error_len = 100635378724879}, qword2 = {ext_status = 0, 
> rsvd = 0,
>       l2tag2_1 = 0, l2tag2_2 = 0}, qword3 = {lo_dword = {flex_bytes_lo = 0,
>         pe_status = 0}, hi_dword = {flex_bytes_hi = 0, fd_id = 0}}}}
> 
> With formula:		length = (qword1 &
> I40E_RXD_QW1_LENGTH_PBUF_MASK) >>
> I40E_RXD_QW1_LENGTH_PBUF_SHIFT;  (qword1 is status_error_len in gdb
> printout)
> I can get length of first segment(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+1) is 
> 2176, and length of second segment(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+2) is 
> 366, which proves they are the mbuf segments to receive.
> However we can see the l2tag1 of first segment is 73(invalid), l2tag1 
> of second segment is 1901(valid).
> 
> It means either HW should be modified to fill l2tag1 correctly for 
> each every segment, or _recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2 should be modified to 
> read l2tag1 of last segment?
> PS: it seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts use the l2tag1 of last rxd (to 
> set vlan tci of first segment), don't know it is by accident(convenience) or by purpose.
> 
> Do you agree on my analysis?
> If my analysis is correct, is it possible for you to help make a sw 
> patch, because I'm not familiar with this vec avx code.
> 
> Best regards
> Yan Xiaoping
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Guo <jia.guo@intel.com>
> Sent: 2020年5月19日 15:00
> To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>; 
> beilei.xing@intel.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
> 
> hi, xiaoping
> 
> On 5/18/2020 4:31 PM, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> > Hi Beilei & Jia,
> >
> > I got your name from the MAINTAINERS  for Intel i40e.
> > Could you help to have a look at the issue, described in my previous mail?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Yan Xiaoping
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> > Sent: 2020年5月18日 15:24
> > To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:12:27AM +0000, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB -
> CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm using i40e vf, dpdk 18.11, x86_64 CPU (rx function in use is
> >> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2)
> >> When enable hw vlan strip:
> >>
> >>    *   If packet fit in one mbuf segment, the vlan_tci field is correct
> >>    *   If packets are stored in several mbuf segment, the vlan_tci of last
> segment is correct, vlan_tci of other segments are invalid
> >>
> >> It seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts has correctly set the vlan_tci, 
> >> by calling i40e_rxd_to_vlan_tci(first_seg, &rxd);
> >>
> >> Is this a bug in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2?
> >> (I didn't find setting vlan_tci for first segment, but it's a bit 
> >> difficult for me to understand codes in 
> >> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2, so I'm not quite sure) I checked 
> >> the latest dpdk version 20.02 
> >> http://lxr.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_v
> >> ec
> >> _
> >> avx2.c#L791
> >> But seems no change for this.
> >>
> >> Any comment please?
> >> [...]
> > I don't know about the i40e driver, but I can confirm that the vlan 
> > tci flag
> should be in the first segment, and not in the next ones.
> >
> > I suggest to CC i40e driver maintainers.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Olivier
> 
> 
> On one hand, as Olivier said that vlan tci flag should be in the first 
> segment, and on the other hands, vlan_tci do process in "_recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2"
> when use 256 instinct
> 
> to process the descriptor with mbuf,  you could check how to process 
> the vlan_flags_shuf and blend it into the mbuf.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
  2020-05-20  7:42           ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
@ 2020-05-20  7:48             ` Zhang, Qi Z
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Zhang, Qi Z @ 2020-05-20  7:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou), Guo, Jia, Xing, Beilei
  Cc: dev, Olivier Matz



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:42 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Guo, Jia <jia.guo@intel.com>; Xing,
> Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I tried the change, and it solved the problem.
> Should I submit the change to github? Or you will do that?
> Thank you.

No worry, I saw Guo Jia also reply this on another thread with the same fix, and he will submit the fix, thanks to report this!

> 
> Best regards
> Yan Xiaoping
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> Sent: 2020年5月19日 20:42
> To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>;
> Guo, Jia <jia.guo@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
> 
> Hi Xiaoping:
> 
> 	According to i40e datasheet, for packet with multiple buffer, the L2TAG
> should only be valid on last Rx descriptor.
> 	So it is identical with what you observed and it looks like a bug in the
> vector path.
> 	Could you try if below change can fix the issue?
> 
> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ reassemble_packets(struct i40e_rx_queue *rxq, struct
> rte_mbuf **rx_bufs,
>                                 /* it's the last packet of the set */
>                                 start->hash = end->hash;
>                                 start->ol_flags = end->ol_flags;
> +                               start->vlan_tci = end->vlan_tci;
>                                 /* we need to strip crc for the whole
> packet */
>                                 start->pkt_len -= rxq->crc_len;
>                                 if (end->data_len > rxq->crc_len
> 
> Thanks
> Qi
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Yan, Xiaoping (NSB -
> > CN/Hangzhou)
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 4:32 PM
> > To: Guo, Jia <jia.guo@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I tried to use gdb to print the rx descriptor, and it turned out that
> > only the rxd for the last segment has correct l2tag1 value.
> > Test step: ping xx.xx.xx.xx -s 2500,   from a vlan interface with vlan id
> 1901,
> > MTU 9000. (this will sends 1 packet, and needs two mbuf segments to
> > receive, length of 1st mbuf segment is 2176(mbuf size of my dpdk
> > application), length of 2nd mbuf segment is 366)
> >
> > Rx descriptor printed with gdb:
> > Breakpoint 2 at 0x7ffff5efa4bb: file
> >
> /usr/src/debug/dpdk-18.11.1-2.nok6.wf31.x86_64/package/dpdk/dpdk-18.1
> > 1/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_avx2.c, line 496.
> > (gdb) print *(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+1)
> > $4 = {read = {pkt_addr = 14858615587319906304, hdr_addr =
> > 598164390293517, rsvd1 = 0,
> >     rsvd2 = 0}, wb = {qword0 = {lo_dword = {mirr_fcoe =
> > {mirroring_status = 0,
> >           fcoe_ctx_id = 0}, l2tag1 = 73}, hi_dword = {rss = 3459541031,
> >         fcoe_param = 3459541031, fd_id = 3459541031}}, qword1 = {
> >       status_error_len = 598164390293517}, qword2 = {ext_status = 0,
> > rsvd = 0,
> >       l2tag2_1 = 0, l2tag2_2 = 0}, qword3 = {lo_dword = {flex_bytes_lo =
> 0,
> >         pe_status = 0}, hi_dword = {flex_bytes_hi = 0, fd_id = 0}}}}
> > (gdb) print *(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+2)
> > $5 = {read = {pkt_addr = 14858615587439706112, hdr_addr =
> > 100635378724879, rsvd1 = 0,
> >     rsvd2 = 0}, wb = {qword0 = {lo_dword = {mirr_fcoe =
> > {mirroring_status = 0,
> >           fcoe_ctx_id = 0}, l2tag1 = 1901}, hi_dword = {rss =
> 3459541031,
> >         fcoe_param = 3459541031, fd_id = 3459541031}}, qword1 = {
> >       status_error_len = 100635378724879}, qword2 = {ext_status = 0,
> > rsvd = 0,
> >       l2tag2_1 = 0, l2tag2_2 = 0}, qword3 = {lo_dword = {flex_bytes_lo =
> 0,
> >         pe_status = 0}, hi_dword = {flex_bytes_hi = 0, fd_id = 0}}}}
> >
> > With formula:		length = (qword1 &
> > I40E_RXD_QW1_LENGTH_PBUF_MASK) >>
> > I40E_RXD_QW1_LENGTH_PBUF_SHIFT;  (qword1 is status_error_len in
> gdb
> > printout)
> > I can get length of first segment(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+1) is
> > 2176, and length of second segment(rxq->rx_ring + rxq->rx_tail+2) is
> > 366, which proves they are the mbuf segments to receive.
> > However we can see the l2tag1 of first segment is 73(invalid), l2tag1
> > of second segment is 1901(valid).
> >
> > It means either HW should be modified to fill l2tag1 correctly for
> > each every segment, or _recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2 should be modified to
> > read l2tag1 of last segment?
> > PS: it seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts use the l2tag1 of last rxd (to
> > set vlan tci of first segment), don't know it is by accident(convenience) or
> by purpose.
> >
> > Do you agree on my analysis?
> > If my analysis is correct, is it possible for you to help make a sw
> > patch, because I'm not familiar with this vec avx code.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Yan Xiaoping
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Guo <jia.guo@intel.com>
> > Sent: 2020年5月19日 15:00
> > To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>;
> > beilei.xing@intel.com
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
> >
> > hi, xiaoping
> >
> > On 5/18/2020 4:31 PM, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> > > Hi Beilei & Jia,
> > >
> > > I got your name from the MAINTAINERS  for Intel i40e.
> > > Could you help to have a look at the issue, described in my previous
> mail?
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Yan Xiaoping
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> > > Sent: 2020年5月18日 15:24
> > > To: Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <xiaoping.yan@nokia-sbell.com>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:12:27AM +0000, Yan, Xiaoping (NSB -
> > CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I'm using i40e vf, dpdk 18.11, x86_64 CPU (rx function in use is
> > >> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2)
> > >> When enable hw vlan strip:
> > >>
> > >>    *   If packet fit in one mbuf segment, the vlan_tci field is correct
> > >>    *   If packets are stored in several mbuf segment, the vlan_tci of
> last
> > segment is correct, vlan_tci of other segments are invalid
> > >>
> > >> It seems i40e_recv_scattered_pkts has correctly set the vlan_tci,
> > >> by calling i40e_rxd_to_vlan_tci(first_seg, &rxd);
> > >>
> > >> Is this a bug in i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2?
> > >> (I didn't find setting vlan_tci for first segment, but it's a bit
> > >> difficult for me to understand codes in
> > >> i40e_recv_scattered_pkts_vec_avx2, so I'm not quite sure) I checked
> > >> the latest dpdk version 20.02
> > >> http://lxr.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_v
> > >> ec
> > >> _
> > >> avx2.c#L791
> > >> But seems no change for this.
> > >>
> > >> Any comment please?
> > >> [...]
> > > I don't know about the i40e driver, but I can confirm that the vlan
> > > tci flag
> > should be in the first segment, and not in the next ones.
> > >
> > > I suggest to CC i40e driver maintainers.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Olivier
> >
> >
> > On one hand, as Olivier said that vlan tci flag should be in the first
> > segment, and on the other hands, vlan_tci do process in
> "_recv_raw_pkts_vec_avx2"
> > when use 256 instinct
> >
> > to process the descriptor with mbuf,  you could check how to process
> > the vlan_flags_shuf and blend it into the mbuf.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2020-05-23 20:21 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-05-15 11:12 [dpdk-dev] incorrect vlan_tci in rte mbuf Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
2020-05-18  7:24 ` Olivier Matz
2020-05-18  8:31   ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
2020-05-19  7:00     ` Jeff Guo
2020-05-19  8:31       ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
2020-05-19 12:27         ` Jeff Guo
2020-05-19 12:41         ` Zhang, Qi Z
2020-05-20  7:42           ` Yan, Xiaoping (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)
2020-05-20  7:48             ` Zhang, Qi Z

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git