patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mohsin Kazmi <mohsin.kazmi14@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net: fix Intel-specific Prepare the outer ipv4 hdr for checksum
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:44:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKkt9++RhinZTxFZvDiGBhN9xFmQbdfn3=N3WD2qRuK2FAfA6Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKkt9+LyKRqc0BzaK5n1CJ-a6_nGt6vA77urDt+oFSD3+YUhkA@mail.gmail.com>

Are we good with this patch with the current state? @Olivier: Any comments
on the above suggestions?

On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 1:49 PM Mohsin Kazmi <mohsin.kazmi14@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 1:49 PM Andrew Rybchenko <
> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>
>> On 7/30/21 2:11 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 06:46:53PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> >> On 7/7/21 12:40 PM, Mohsin Kazmi wrote:
>> >>> Preparation the headers for the hardware offload
>> >>> misses the outer ipv4 checksum offload.
>> >>> It results in bad checksum computed by hardware NIC.
>> >>>
>> >>> This patch fixes the issue by setting the outer ipv4
>> >>> checksum field to 0.
>> >>>
>> >>> Fixes: 4fb7e803eb1a ("ethdev: add Tx preparation")
>> >>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>> >>>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mohsin Kazmi <mohsin.kazmi14@gmail.com>
>> >>> Acked-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>> >>> ---
>> >>> v3:
>> >>>      * Update the conditional test with PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM.
>> >>>      * Update the commit title with "Intel-specific".
>> >>>
>> >>> v2:
>> >>>      * Update the commit message with Fixes.
>> >>>
>> >>>    lib/net/rte_net.h | 15 +++++++++++++--
>> >>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >>>
>> >>> diff --git a/lib/net/rte_net.h b/lib/net/rte_net.h
>> >>> index 434435ffa2..3f4c8c58b9 100644
>> >>> --- a/lib/net/rte_net.h
>> >>> +++ b/lib/net/rte_net.h
>> >>> @@ -125,11 +125,22 @@ rte_net_intel_cksum_flags_prepare(struct
>> rte_mbuf *m, uint64_t ol_flags)
>> >>>      * Mainly it is required to avoid fragmented headers check if
>> >>>      * no offloads are requested.
>> >>>      */
>> >>> -   if (!(ol_flags & (PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM | PKT_TX_L4_MASK |
>> PKT_TX_TCP_SEG)))
>> >>> +   if (!(ol_flags & (PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM | PKT_TX_L4_MASK |
>> PKT_TX_TCP_SEG |
>> >>> +                     PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM)))
>> >>>             return 0;
>> >>> -   if (ol_flags & (PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 | PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6))
>> >>> +   if (ol_flags & (PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 | PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6)) {
>> >>>             inner_l3_offset += m->outer_l2_len + m->outer_l3_len;
>> >>> +           /*
>> >>> +            * prepare outer ipv4 header checksum by setting it to 0,
>> >>> +            * in order to be computed by hardware NICs.
>> >>> +            */
>> >>> +           if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM) {
>> >>> +                   ipv4_hdr = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(m,
>> >>> +                                   struct rte_ipv4_hdr *,
>> m->outer_l2_len);
>> >>> +                   ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum = 0;
>> >>
>> >> Here we assume that the field is located in the first segment.
>> >> Unlikely but it still could be false. We must handle it properly.
>> >
>> > This is specified in the API comment, so I think it has to be checked
>> > by the caller.
>>
>> If no, what's the point to spoil memory here if stricter check is
>> done few lines below.
>>
> We have two possibilities:
> 1) take the whole block of above code after the strict check: Then strict
> check will use m->outer_l2_len + m->outer_l3_len directly without any
> condition and we will be on the mercy of drivers to initialize these to 0
> if outer headers are not use. Drivers usually don't set the fields which
> they are not interested in because of performance reasons as
> setting these values per packet will cost them additional cycles.
> 2) Taking just PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM conditional check after the strict
> fragmented check: In that case, each packet will hit an extra conditional
> check without getting benefit from it, again with a performance penalty.
>
> I am more inclined towards solution 1. But I also welcome other
> suggestions/comments.
>
>>
>> >>> +           }
>> >>> +   }
>> >>>     /*
>> >>>      * Check if headers are fragmented.
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-27 13:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-30 11:04 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] net: prepare " Mohsin Kazmi
2021-06-30 14:09 ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-07  9:14   ` Mohsin Kazmi
2021-07-22 19:53     ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Thomas Monjalon
2021-08-03 12:29       ` Mohsin Kazmi
2021-07-07  9:40 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] net: fix Intel-specific Prepare " Mohsin Kazmi
2021-07-22 19:56   ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-27 12:52     ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-28 15:46   ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Andrew Rybchenko
2021-07-30 11:11     ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-31 12:49       ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-08-03 12:49         ` Mohsin Kazmi
2021-08-27 13:44           ` Mohsin Kazmi [this message]
2021-09-07 10:49   ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] net: fix Intel-specific Prepare the outer IPv4 " Mohsin Kazmi
2021-09-15 10:39     ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-09-15 11:04     ` Ferruh Yigit

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='CAKkt9++RhinZTxFZvDiGBhN9xFmQbdfn3=N3WD2qRuK2FAfA6Q@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=mohsin.kazmi14@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    /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

patches for DPDK stable branches

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable/0 stable/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 stable stable/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable \
		stable@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index stable

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


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