From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD64A0A0E for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 17:20:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F100B410E3; Wed, 12 May 2021 17:20:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F106410E3 for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 17:20:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1620832843; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZDGSeVSSD+TdC3rlg6qJWuV1wF+5U/p+QCNPctw9dxg=; b=FjHHv+WW0fQ2oMsn8oNZ/LtO8P/oWNmJgS/OQCCwVY8xUXk4EPUlO7L3GzN53ZeUQossDB g/dvvhpz7AVj/hxHdE2nl/yTpt/gdCHwYfCaWEKLQjTcUgsgaTBNVH71PdIjWe2fNuKHKZ b6ZJe8lETAqXyYtqxJZ5ko60carUnBo= Received: from mail-vs1-f69.google.com (mail-vs1-f69.google.com [209.85.217.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-485-29lhk2LhPCywOEKs4lp-KA-1; Wed, 12 May 2021 11:20:33 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 29lhk2LhPCywOEKs4lp-KA-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f69.google.com with SMTP id e12-20020a67d80c0000b029022a88436f30so6370741vsj.11 for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 08:20:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZDGSeVSSD+TdC3rlg6qJWuV1wF+5U/p+QCNPctw9dxg=; b=BBGuT66Hj/cM8fp8tPDJ1L6a0KYDRBtFpGVxGhETHmvalxI1UrScU1kqkm9Ohecbrx oOp5wQkrEWzyyfFdToUeMK6JGeyqDDDfjnvVgFyLIu3KCtbQ4PEbvS6KSaxte0/ydQiP M3rJ5S5pr4BxLJkmCho8yBsO5QP4lr0MHAI0XJ2WeIGp1howRM6YyJCMv0Nt919iGfoV mKaN3SVuv+CZcgiREgJ9f9PaoVgQ9Ne1FGgbNVLWEdn+74DCNZneiWTRC5tZ+RysB+P6 iTY3/jH57aHp8jFksQ4ltiJlFIV77hFNR8u5LFSve8dhoMYYS+DTx7sWUwZXM+R6kvwP kIGw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532QjIJfifOI5NjtkB1+0w3YfkbpQ5ndydyKG8hwoTtcZdJe9Zzk ODEinGzYtBLZNx+p2DjpNnEQevpJ0Vanmbyhyt1EK1gyPyCadj9CZVvOknAJY2DDgyNKkOWONXM Iym1CQKxpNaXdGxHeAaqc3yY= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:132a:: with SMTP id g39mr2022228uae.53.1620832833384; Wed, 12 May 2021 08:20:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwTs7z8P013az7PoS4UjM2X7rnuVkvQx7Q6jcT6xB9qBO/3GW75c5DTLT6o0G/pAACGBoCxDhbJevk5TI5B0OQ= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:132a:: with SMTP id g39mr2022187uae.53.1620832833087; Wed, 12 May 2021 08:20:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210401095243.18211-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20210503164344.27916-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20210503164344.27916-4-david.marchand@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 17:20:21 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Wang, Yinan" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" , "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "fbl@sysclose.org" , "i.maximets@ovn.org" , "Xia, Chenbo" , "Stokes, Ian" , "stable@dpdk.org" , Jijiang Liu , Yuanhan Liu Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/3] vhost: fix offload flags in Rx path X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 5:30 AM Wang, Yinan wrote: > > Hi David, > > Since vhost tx offload can=E2=80=99t work now, we report a Bugzilla as be= low, could you help to take a look? > https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D702 (I discovered your mail from 05/08 only today, now that I got a new mail, might be a pebcak from me, sorry...) - Looking at the bz, there is a first issue/misconception. testpmd only does TSO or any kind of tx offloading with the csum forward en= gine. The iofwd engine won't make TSO possible. - Let's say we use the csum fwd engine, testpmd configures drivers through the ethdev API. The ethdev API states that no offloading is enabled unless requested by the application. TSO, l3/l4 checksums offloading are documented as: https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/features.html#l3-checksum-offload https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/features.html#lro But the vhost pmd does not report such capabilities. https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/drivers/net/vhost/rte_eth_vhost.c#n1276 So we can't expect testpmd to have tso working with net/vhost pmd. - The csum offloading engine swaps mac addresses. I would expect issues with inter vm traffic. In summary, I think this is a bad test. If it worked with the commands in the bugzilla before my change (which I doubt), it was wrong. > We also tried vhost example with VM2VM iperf test, large pkts also can't = forwarding. "large pkts", can you give details? I tried to use this example, without/with my change, but: When I try to start this example with a physical port and two vhosts, I get a crash (division by 0 on vdmq stuff). When I start it without a physical port, I get a complaint about no port being enabled. Passing a portmask 0x1 seems to work, the example starts but, next, no traffic is forwarded (not even arp). Hooking gdb, I never get packet dequeued from vhost. --=20 David Marchand