Hi Konstantin,
On 9/19/2016 8:09 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Jainfeng,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tan, Jianfeng
>> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 4:57 AM
>> To: dev at dpdk.org
>> Cc: thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>> <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
>> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu at intel.com>;
>> Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang at intel.com>; Tan, Jianfeng
>> <jianfeng.tan at intel.com>; Tao, Zhe <zhe.tao at intel.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH v4 3/3] app/testpmd: fix Tx offload on tunneling packet
>>
>> Tx offload on tunneling packet now requires applications to correctly set
>> tunneling type. Without setting it, i40e driver does not parse
>> tunneling parameters. Besides that, add a check to see if NIC supports TSO
>> on tunneling packet when executing "csum parse_tunnel on
>> _port"
>> after "tso set _size _port" or the other way around.
>>
>> Fixes: b51c47536a9e ("app/testpmd: support TSO in checksum forward engine")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhe Tao <zhe.tao at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jianfeng Tan <jianfeng.tan at intel.com>
>> ---
>> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> app/test-pmd/csumonly.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> @@ -745,7 +762,7 @@ pkt_burst_checksum_forward(struct fwd_stream *fs)
>> * processed in hardware. */
>> if (info.is_tunnel == 1) {
>> ol_flags |= process_outer_cksums(outer_l3_hdr, &info,
>> - testpmd_ol_flags);
>> + testpmd_ol_flags, ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG);
>> }
>>
>> /* step 4: fill the mbuf meta data (flags and header lengths)
>> */ @@ -806,6 +823,10 @@
>
> It was a while since I looked a t it closely, but shouldn't you also update
> step 4 below:
>
> if (info.is_tunnel == 1) {
> if (testpmd_ol_flags &
> TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IP_CKSUM) {
> m->outer_l2_len = info.outer_l2_len;
> m->outer_l3_len = info.outer_l3_len;
> m->l2_len = info.l2_len;
> m->l3_len = info.l3_len;
> m->l4_len = info.l4_len;
> }
> else {
> /* if there is a outer UDP cksum
> processed in sw and the inner in hw,
> the outer checksum will be wrong as
> the payload will be modified by the
> hardware */
> m->l2_len = info.outer_l2_len +
> info.outer_l3_len + info.l2_len;
> m->l3_len = info.l3_len;
> m->l4_len = info.l4_len;
> }
>
>
> ?
>
> In particular shouldn't it be something like:
> if ((testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IP_CKSUM) != 0 ||
> ((testmpd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_PARSE_TUNNEL) != 0 &&
> info.tso_segsz != 0)) {
> ....
> ?
Sorry for late response, because I also take some time to refresh
memory. And, you are right, I missed this corner case. After applying
your way above, it works!
The case below settings in testpmd:
$ set fwd csum
$ csum parse_tunnel on 0
$ tso set 800 0
<keep outer-ip checksum offload is sw>
And unfortunately, our previous verification is based on "outer-ip
checksum offload is hw".
>
> Another thought, might be it is worth to introduce new flag:
> TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_TSO_TUNNEL,
> and new command in cmdline.c, that would set/clear that flag.
> Instead of trying to make assumptions does
> user wants tso for tunneled packets based on 2 different things:
> - enable/disable tso
> - enable/disable tunneled packets parsing
> ?
Currently, if we do parse_tunnel is based on the command "csum
parse_tunnel on/off <port>".
If we add a command like "tso_tunnel set <length> <port>", it's a little
duplicated with "tso set <length> <port>", and there is too much info to
just set a flag like TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_TSO_TUNNEL;
If we add a command like "csum tunnel_tso on <port>", it also depends on
"csum parse_tunnel on <port>" so that tunnel packets are parsed.
As far as I can see, the new command will always have semantic
overlapping with existing commands, because it indeed depends on the two
different things.
Thanks,
Jianfeng
>
> Konstantin
>
