On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 22:10:33 +0300 jigsaw <jigsaw at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen, > > Thanks for showing a bigger picture. > > GSO is quite big implementation, that I think it won't be easily > ported to DPDK. The mbuf needs to be equipped with many fields from > skb to be able to deal with GSO. > Do you have the plan to port GSO to DPDK, or you would like to keep > GSO in scope of virtio? > > Regarding checksum flags, actually I was also thinking of extending > ol_flags but then I gave it up coz I was worried about the size of > mbuf. > My current patch has to push some work to user, due to the fact that > mbuf delivers too few info (such as L2 and L3 protocol details). > > Besides, as you mentioned, the ixgbe driver doesn't leverage the > hardware receive checksum offloading at all. And if this is to be > supported, the checksum flag need further extension. > (On the other hand, TSO doesn't care about receive checksum offloading). > Again, do you have plans to extend cksum flags so that virio feels > more comfortable with DPDK? > > Hi Venky, > > I can either make the commit now as is, or wait till the cksum flags > extension is in place. If Stephen (or somebody else) has the plan for > better support for cksum offloading or GSO, it is perhaps better to > implement TSO on top of that. > > BTW, I have another small question. Current TSO patch offloads the > TCP/IP pseudo cksum work to user. Do you think DPDK could provide some > utility functions for TCP/IPv4/IPv6 pseudo cksum calculation and > updating? > > thx & > rgds, > -Qinglai I want to get Tx checksum offload in virtio working first. Just looking ahead to Rx.
