DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
To: huangdengdui <huangdengdui@huawei.com>,
	Jie Hai <haijie1@huawei.com>,
	dev@dpdk.org
Cc: lihuisong@huawei.com, fengchengwen@huawei.com, liuyonglong@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/hns3: fix Rx packet truncation when KEEP CRC enabled
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:25:25 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ebaa72c6-d84f-4529-bc68-7889166f6d59@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <760c70e6-ca2d-4d5e-9a05-809b81d32dd3@huawei.com>

On 2/29/2024 3:58 AM, huangdengdui wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/2/28 21:07, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 2:27 AM, huangdengdui wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2024/2/27 0:43, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2024 3:16 AM, Jie Hai wrote:
>>>>> On 2024/2/23 21:53, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 3:58 AM, Jie Hai wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, Ferruh,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your review.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024/2/7 22:15, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2024 1:10 AM, Jie Hai wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Dengdui Huang <huangdengdui@huawei.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When KEEP_CRC offload is enabled, some packets will be truncated and
>>>>>>>>> the CRC is still be stripped in following cases:
>>>>>>>>> 1. For HIP08 hardware, the packet type is TCP and the length
>>>>>>>>>      is less than or equal to 60B.
>>>>>>>>> 2. For other hardwares, the packet type is IP and the length
>>>>>>>>>      is less than or equal to 60B.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a device doesn't support the offload by some packets, it can be
>>>>>>>> option to disable offload for that device, instead of calculating it in
>>>>>>>> software and append it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The KEEP CRC feature of hns3 is faulty only in the specific packet
>>>>>>> type and small packet(<60B) case.
>>>>>>> What's more, the small ethernet packet is not common.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless you have a specific usecase, or requirement to support the
>>>>>>>> offload.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, some users of hns3 are already using this feature.
>>>>>>> So we cannot drop this offload
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @@ -2492,10 +2544,16 @@ hns3_recv_pkts_simple(void *rx_queue,
>>>>>>>>>                goto pkt_err;
>>>>>>>>>              rxm->packet_type = hns3_rx_calc_ptype(rxq, l234_info,
>>>>>>>>> ol_info);
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>            if (rxm->packet_type == RTE_PTYPE_L2_ETHER_TIMESYNC)
>>>>>>>>>                rxm->ol_flags |= RTE_MBUF_F_RX_IEEE1588_PTP;
>>>>>>>>>    +        if (unlikely(rxq->crc_len > 0)) {
>>>>>>>>> +            if (hns3_need_recalculate_crc(rxq, rxm))
>>>>>>>>> +                hns3_recalculate_crc(rxq, rxm);
>>>>>>>>> +            rxm->pkt_len -= rxq->crc_len;
>>>>>>>>> +            rxm->data_len -= rxq->crc_len;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Removing 'crc_len' from 'mbuf->pkt_len' & 'mbuf->data_len' is
>>>>>>>> practically same as stripping CRC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We don't count CRC length in the statistics, but it should be
>>>>>>>> accessible
>>>>>>>> in the payload by the user.
>>>>>>> Our drivers are behaving exactly as you say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so I missed why mbuf 'pkt_len' and 'data_len' reduced by
>>>>>> 'rxq->crc_len', can you please explain what above lines does?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -2470,8 +2523,7 @@ hns3_recv_pkts_simple(void *rx_queue,
>>>>>          rxdp->rx.bd_base_info = 0;
>>>>>
>>>>>          rxm->data_off = RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
>>>>> -        rxm->pkt_len = (uint16_t)(rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.rx.pkt_len)) -
>>>>> -                rxq->crc_len;
>>>>> +        rxm->pkt_len = rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.rx.pkt_len);
>>>>>
>>>>> In the previous code above, the 'pkt_len' is set to the length obtained
>>>>> from the BD. the length obtained from the BD already contains CRC length.
>>>>> But as you said above, the DPDK requires that the length of the mbuf
>>>>> does not contain CRC length . So we subtract 'rxq->crc_len' from
>>>>> mbuf'pkt_len' and 'data_len'. This patch doesn't change the logic, it
>>>>> just moves the code around.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I am not saying mbuf length shouldn't contain CRC length, indeed
>>>> it is other way around and this is our confusion.
>>>>
>>>> CRC length shouldn't be in the statistics, I mean in received bytes stats.
>>>> Assume that received packet is 128 bytes and we know it has the CRC,
>>>> Rx received bytes stat should be 124 (rx_bytes = 128 - CRC = 124)
>>>>
>>>> But mbuf->data_len & mbuf->pkt_len should have full frame length,
>>>> including CRC.
>>>>
>>>> As application explicitly requested to KEEP CRC, it will know last 4
>>>> bytes are CRC.
>>>> Anything after 'mbuf->data_len' in the mbuf buffer is not valid, so if
>>>> you reduce 'mbuf->data_len' by CRC size, application can't know if 4
>>>> bytes after 'mbuf->data_len' is valid CRC or not.
>>>>
>>> I agree with you.
>>>
>>> But the implementation of other PMDs supported KEEP_CRC is like this.
>>> In addition, there are probably many users that are already using it.
>>> If we modify it, it may cause applications incompatible.
>>>
>>> what do you think?
>>>
>> This is documented in the ethdev [1], better to follow the documentation
>> for all PMDs, can you please highlight the relevant driver code, we can
>> discuss it with their maintainers.
>>
>> Alternatively we can document this additionally in the KEEP_CRC feature
>> document if it helps for the applications.
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h?h=v23.11#n257
> 
> Currently,this documentation does not describe whether pkt_len and data_len should contain crc_len.
> 

I think it is clear that pkt_len and data_len should contain crc_len, we
can ask for more comments.

> Do you mean that we add this description in the KEEP_CRC feature document
> and notify all drivers that support KEEP_CRC to follow this documentation?
> 
> If so, can you merge this patch first?
> Then we send a RFC to disscuss it with all PMDs maintainer.
>

Not for drivers, just a suggestion that if we should update feature
documentation with above information for users. So there is no
dependency to features document update.



  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-29  9:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-06  1:10 Jie Hai
2024-02-07 14:15 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-20  3:58   ` Jie Hai
2024-02-23 13:53     ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-26  3:16       ` Jie Hai
2024-02-26 16:43         ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-28  2:27           ` huangdengdui
2024-02-28 13:07             ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-29  3:58               ` huangdengdui
2024-02-29  9:25                 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2024-03-01  6:55                   ` huangdengdui
2024-03-01 11:10                     ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-03-08 11:36                       ` Jie Hai
2024-03-22  6:28                         ` Jie Hai
2024-06-03  1:38                       ` Jie Hai
2024-06-03  2:33                         ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-06-03  5:24                           ` Morten Brørup
2024-06-03  7:07                           ` Andrew Rybchenko
2024-07-18 11:48 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] bugfix about KEEP CRC offload Jie Hai
2024-07-18 11:48   ` [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: add description for " Jie Hai
2024-07-18 11:57     ` Morten Brørup
2024-07-18 11:48   ` [PATCH v2 2/3] net/hns3: fix packet length do not contain CRC data length Jie Hai
2024-07-18 11:48   ` [PATCH v2 3/3] net/hns3: fix Rx packet without CRC data Jie Hai
2024-07-18 12:35   ` [PATCH v2 0/3] bugfix about KEEP CRC offload lihuisong (C)
2024-07-19  9:04 ` [PATCH v3 " Jie Hai
2024-07-19  9:04   ` [PATCH v3 1/3] ethdev: add description for " Jie Hai
2024-09-05  6:33     ` Andrew Rybchenko
2024-07-19  9:04   ` [PATCH v3 2/3] net/hns3: fix packet length do not contain CRC data length Jie Hai
2024-07-19  9:04   ` [PATCH v3 3/3] net/hns3: fix Rx packet without CRC data Jie Hai
2024-07-19  9:49   ` [PATCH v3 0/3] bugfix about KEEP CRC offload fengchengwen
2024-08-09  9:21   ` Jie Hai
2024-09-05  2:53   ` Jie Hai
2024-10-18  1:39   ` Jie Hai
2024-11-06  2:19   ` Jie Hai

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=ebaa72c6-d84f-4529-bc68-7889166f6d59@amd.com \
    --to=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=fengchengwen@huawei.com \
    --cc=haijie1@huawei.com \
    --cc=huangdengdui@huawei.com \
    --cc=lihuisong@huawei.com \
    --cc=liuyonglong@huawei.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).