From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
To: Suchetha p <suchetha2005@gmail.com>, "users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] IPV4 and VLAN RX packets from NIC donot have the mbuf offload flag set with DPDK 18.08 version
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:43:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E923DB57A917B54B9182A2E928D00FA675886D5E@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOGjjAPL_HDLq5gbW3+jHGA_gYYE2ti5NRq3S=UfcktBzso7Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: users [mailto:users-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Suchetha p
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:14 PM
> To: users@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-users] IPV4 and VLAN RX packets from NIC donot have the mbuf
> offload flag set with DPDK 18.08 version
>
> Hi,
>
>
> After upgrading the DPDK to 18.08 version and RHEL 7.6 OS I observe that
> offload flags were not set in the packets received from NIC for eth type
> VLAN and IPV4.
>
> Hence application had to explicitly set the offload flags for VLAN and IPV4
> packet.
>
> if (ETHER_TYPE_VLAN == eth_type) {
> m->ol_flags |= PKT_RX_VLAN_PKT;
>
> }
> if (ETHER_TYPE_IPv4 == eth_type) {
> m->ol_flags |= PKT_RX_IPV4_HDR;
> }
Do you expect the issue described below is a performance issue from the above code?
It seems quite "branchy", meaning branch-misses might have a high
performance impact if your incoming traffic is not predictable.
From a code point of view, the following achieves the same effect, but without
any branching on the datapath;
m->ol_flags |= (ETHER_TYPE_VLAN == eth_type) << PKT_RX_VLAN_PKT_SHIFT;
Notice that the comparison (ETHER_TYPE_VLAN == eth_type) will result in a 1 or 0,
and using |= with a 0 value won't change the m->ol_flags bit contents.
If the performance impact of branch-mispredicts is the root cause for your
issue, try the above code and see does it help/solve.
> If these offload flags were not set in the mbuf the packet would get
> dropped and will not be forwarded to the Tap device.
>
> But the offload flag setting per NIC received packet is causing some
> performance issue and delay in data transfer.
>
> TCP segment loss and retransmissions are observed and TX Tap drops are
> observed.
>
> These changes with respect to offload flag setting for RX VLAN and IPV4
> packet was not required with old DPDK and RHEL6 and packets were getting
> forwarded from NIC to Tap device and vice versa without any issue.
>
> So is anything changed with respect to DPDK and RHEL 7 for ingress packets ?
I'll let others reply here - I don't know, sorry.
<snip>
Hope that helps, -Harry
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-27 16:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-25 14:13 Suchetha p
2019-06-27 16:43 ` Van Haaren, Harry [this message]
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=E923DB57A917B54B9182A2E928D00FA675886D5E@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=suchetha2005@gmail.com \
--cc=users@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
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).