Hi Jianfeng,
>
> 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>
Great :)
>
> 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.
But I thought in some cases user might want to enable tunnel parsing, but do
tso for non-tunneled packets only.
I.E.
- enable tunnel parsing
- for non-tunneled packets do tso
- for tunneled packets don't do tso
My understanding that with current set commands/flags this is not possible,
correct?
Konstantin
>
> 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
> >
