> Hi Akhil, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com> > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 2:49 PM > > To: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad > > <ma...@nvidia.com> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH v2 1/2] crypto/mlx5: optimize AES-GCM IPsec > > operation > > > > > To optimize AES-GCM IPsec operation within crypto/mlx5, the DPDK API > > > typically supplies AES_GCM AAD/Payload/Digest in separate locations, > > > potentially disrupting their contiguous layout. In cases where the > > > memory layout fails to meet hardware (HW) requirements, an UMR WQE is > > > initiated ahead of the GCM's GGA WQE to establish a continuous > > > AAD/Payload/Digest virtual memory space for the HW MMU. > > > > > > For IPsec scenarios, where the memory layout consistently adheres to > > > the fixed order of AAD/IV/Payload/Digest, directly shrinking memory > > > for AAD proves more efficient than preparing a UMR WQE. To address > > > this, a new devarg "crypto_mode" with mode "ipsec_opt" is introduced > > > in the commit, offering an optimization hint specifically for IPsec > > > cases. When enabled, the PMD copies AAD directly before Payload in the > > > enqueue_burst function instead of employing the UMR WQE. Subsequently, > > > in the dequeue_burst function, the overridden IV before Payload is > > > restored from the GGA WQE. It's crucial for users to avoid utilizing > > > the input mbuf data during processing. > > > > This seems very specific to mlx5 and is not as per the expectations of > > cryptodev > > APIs. > > > > It seems you are asking to alter the user application to accommodate this to > > support IPsec. > > > > Cryptodev APIs are for generic crypto processing of data as defined in > > rte_crypto_op. > > With your proposed changes, it seems the behavior of the crypto APIs will be > > different in case of mlx5 which I believe is not correct. > > > > Is it not possible for you to use rte_security IPsec path? > > > > Sorry I don't understand why that conflicts the API, IIUC crypto API only just > defines the AAD/Payload/Digest in struct rte_crypto_sym_op, but not restrict > the > sequence, and AAD/Payload/Digest may come from difference memory space. > Am I missing something here?
Yes you are correct that there is no restriction there. > The input requirements from mlx5 HW is AAD/Payload/Digest sequence, if the > input memory of AAD/Payload/Digest does not meet the requirements, PMD will > try to combine the memory address space with UMR WQE as that commit does > by software shrink. And here, you are adding a restriction for IPsec case. I believe you need a way to identify IPsec case with non-ipsec case in data path. For that, instead of using a devarg(which is a specific case for mlx5), you can use generic rte_security session with action type RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_NONE. You may also benefit from rte_ipsec library APIs and test framework, for processing of protocol specific things which are specifically written for RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_NONE case. > And the most important thing is that "ipsec_opt" is not mandatory, only if > user > have such case of layout and allows that optimization happens. Otherwise, the > existing UMR WQE will still be the default behavior here. > With this new devarg which application would you be using for testing? I do not see a patch for application changes for the layout that you are mentioning.
