-----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:13:31 +0100 > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > CC: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>, "Ananyev, Konstantin" > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>, Andrew Rybchenko > <arybche...@solarflare.com>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo...@intel.com>, "Wu, > Jingjing" <jingjing...@intel.com>, "Iremonger, Bernard" > <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>, "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnam...@intel.com>, > "Kovacevic, Marko" <marko.kovace...@intel.com>, Olivier Matz > <olivier.m...@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, > "shah...@mellanox.com" <shah...@mellanox.com>, "didier.pall...@6wind.com" > <didier.pall...@6wind.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP > checksum definition > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 > Thunderbird/52.9.1 > > On 10/8/2018 12:55 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > >> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:53:01 +0100 > >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > >> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, Thomas Monjalon > >> <tho...@monjalon.net> > >> CC: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>, Andrew Rybchenko > >> <arybche...@solarflare.com>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo...@intel.com>, "Wu, > >> Jingjing" <jingjing...@intel.com>, "Iremonger, Bernard" > >> <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>, "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnam...@intel.com>, > >> "Kovacevic, Marko" <marko.kovace...@intel.com>, Olivier Matz > >> <olivier.m...@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, > >> "shah...@mellanox.com" <shah...@mellanox.com>, "didier.pall...@6wind.com" > >> <didier.pall...@6wind.com> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP > >> checksum definition > >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 > >> Thunderbird/52.9.1 > >> > >> On 10/8/2018 10:37 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 11:04:51 +0200 > >>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>>> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, Ferruh Yigit > >>>> <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>, "Ananyev, Konstantin" > >>>> <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > >>>> Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" > >>>> <wenzhuo...@intel.com>, "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing...@intel.com>, > >>>> "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>, "Mcnamara, John" > >>>> <john.mcnam...@intel.com>, "Kovacevic, Marko" > >>>> <marko.kovace...@intel.com>, > >>>> Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, > >>>> "shah...@mellanox.com" <shah...@mellanox.com>, > >>>> "didier.pall...@6wind.com" > >>>> <didier.pall...@6wind.com> > >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add Rx offload outer UDP > >>>> checksum definition > >>>> > >>>> 08/10/2018 10:24, Jerin Jacob: > >>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > >>>>>> On 10/6/2018 1:18 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > >>>>>>> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com] > >>>>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>>>>>>>> However, we should re-visit the flag PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do we need to block this patch due to the exiting > >>>>>>>> PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD > >>>>>>>> definition? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I already added the author of the PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD flag and > >>>>>>>> ethdev and mbuf > >>>>>>>> maintainers in this list. So what else I need make forward progress > >>>>>>>> on this patch? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think, the definition of PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD based on HW > >>>>>>>> capability. It > >>>>>>>> is safe to assume that ALL HW can support CKSUM BAD if the feature is > >>>>>>>> available and hence it is more portable. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes, as I remember PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD is based on > >>>>>>> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Switching to two bit won't reduce the portability, HW supports only > >>>>>> reporting > >>>>>> CKSUM_BAD can set BAD || UNKNOWN. > >>>>> > >>>>> UNKNOWN is not a bit. It is represented as 0. It spec has 2 bit, then > >>>>> driver need to report GOOD as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> Same applies for PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM as well. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And I think patch is not blocked by PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD, it can be > >>>>>> changed > >>>>>> separately, for this patch question is can we represent > >>>>>> PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_* with > >>>>>> two bits, to have BAD/GOOD/UNKNOWN? > >>>> > >>>> Yes, exact. > >>>> > >>>> PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD must be left aside. > >>>> We should just avoid taking it as a reference. > >>>> And we can reconsider its definition later. > >>> > >>> OK. > >>> > >>> IMO, Using 2 bit scheme for tunneled checksum has following performance > >>> issue from driver side. > >>> > >>> Driver need to mark the packet as GOOD. All the HW can support > >>> detection of BAD. That not necessary mean GOOD in case of tunnel packet, > >>> so driver has to detect the packet is tunneled and packet is not BAD > >>> then mark GOOD. > >> > >> Yes UNKNOWN is not a bit, but a state, why don't use it? Why driver has to > >> check > >> it is GOOD? > > > > The application is going to check is it GOOD or not. Not the driver, > > Right? My concern was, If application starts dropping the packet instead > > checking the BAD, if > > it checks == !GOOD. > > Got it, but when 2 bits state introduced, app should check if check == BAD for > drop decision, because it is not GOOD || BAD anymore.
Got it. > > > > >> > >> 0x0 => UNKNOWN > >> 0x1 => BAD > >> 0x2 => GOOD > >> 0x3 => ? (invalid perhaps) > >> > >> HW that supports detecting good packets can set BAD || GOOD state, HW can > >> detect > >> only BAD packet can set BAD || UNKNOWN state. > >> > >> If BAD is not set, there is an ambiguity of state, lets clarify it in lower > >> level, if it is UNKNOWN, let application know it is UNKNOWN. > > > > OK. > > > > How about the following then? > > > > /** > > * Mask of bits used to determine the status of outer RX L4 checksum. > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_UNKNOWN: no information about the outer RX L4 checksum > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_BAD: the outer L4 checksum in the packet is wrong > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_GOOD: the outer L4 checksum in the packet is valid > > * - PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_INVALID: invalid outer L4 checksum state. > > * > > * The detection of PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_GOOD shall be based on the given > > * HW capability, At minimum, the PMD should support > > * PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_UNKNOWN and PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_BAD states > > * if the offload is available. > > */ > > #define PKT_RX_EL4_CKSUM_MASK ((1ULL << 21) | (1ULL << 22)) > > > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_UNKNOWN 0 > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD (1ULL << 21) > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD (1ULL << 22) > > #define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_INVALID ((1ULL << 21) | (1ULL << 22)) > > Looks good to me. If there is no objection with above flag definition, I will send the v3 with that. > > > > > > > > >
