> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hu, Jiayu
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 4:42 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wiles, Keith <keith.wi...@intel.com>;
> yuanhan....@linux.intel.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lib: add Generic Receive Offload API framework
>
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 07:10:21AM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > Hi Jiayu,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hu, Jiayu
> > > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:26 AM
> > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wiles, Keith <keith.wi...@intel.com>;
> > > yuanhan....@linux.intel.com
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lib: add Generic Receive Offload API framework
> > >
> > > Hi Konstantin,
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:38:25PM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jiayu,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Konstantin,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your comments. My replies/questions are below.
> > > > >
> > > > > BRs,
> > > > > Jiayu
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 05:19:19PM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Jiayu,
> > > > > > My comments/questions below.
> > > > > > Konstantin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For applications, DPDK GRO provides three external functions to
> > > > > > > enable/disable GRO:
> > > > > > > - rte_gro_init: initialize GRO environment;
> > > > > > > - rte_gro_enable: enable GRO for a given port;
> > > > > > > - rte_gro_disable: disable GRO for a given port.
> > > > > > > Before using GRO, applications should explicitly call
> > > > > > > rte_gro_init to
> > > > > > > initizalize GRO environment. After that, applications can call
> > > > > > > rte_gro_enable to enable GRO and call rte_gro_disable to disable
> > > > > > > GRO for
> > > > > > > specific ports.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this is too restrictive and wouldn't meet various user's
> > > > > > needs.
> > > > > > User might want to:
> > > > > > - enable/disable GRO for particular RX queue
> > > > > > - or even setup different GRO types for different RX queues,
> > > > > > i.e, - GRO over IPV4/TCP for queue 0, and GRO over IPV6/TCP for
> > > > > > queue 1, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason for enabling/disabling GRO per-port instead of per-queue
> > > > > is that LINUX
> > > > > controls GRO per-port. To control GRO per-queue indeed can provide
> > > > > more flexibility
> > > > > to applications. But are there any scenarios that different queues of
> > > > > a port may
> > > > > require different GRO control (i.e. GRO types and enable/disable GRO)?
> > > >
> > > > I think yes.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > - For various reasons, user might prefer not to use RX callbacks
> > > > > > for various reasons,
> > > > > > But invoke gro() manually at somepoint in his code.
> > > > >
> > > > > An application-used GRO library can enable more flexibility to
> > > > > applications. Besides,
> > > > > when perform GRO in ethdev layer or inside PMD drivers, it is an
> > > > > issue that
> > > > > rte_eth_rx_burst returns actually received packet number or GROed
> > > > > packet number. And
> > > > > the same issue happens in GSO, and even more seriously. This is
> > > > > because applications
> > > > > , like VPP, always rely on the return value of rte_eth_tx_burst to
> > > > > decide further
> > > > > operations. If applications can direcly call GRO/GSO libraries, this
> > > > > issue won't exist.
> > > > > And DPDK is a library, which is not a holistic system like LINUX. We
> > > > > don't need to do
> > > > > the same as LINUX. Therefore, maybe it's a better idea to directly
> > > > > provide SW
> > > > > segmentation/reassembling libraries to applications.
> > > > >
> > > > > > - Many users would like to control size (number of flows/items per
> > > > > > flow),
> > > > > > max allowed packet size, max timeout, etc., for different GRO
> > > > > > tables.
> > > > > > - User would need a way to flush all or only timeout packets from
> > > > > > particular GRO tables.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I think that API needs to extended to become be much more
> > > > > > fine-grained.
> > > > > > Something like that:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct rte_gro_tbl_param {
> > > > > > int32_t socket_id;
> > > > > > size_t max_flows;
> > > > > > size_t max_items_per_flow;
> > > > > > size_t max_pkt_size;
> > > > > > uint64_t packet_timeout_cycles;
> > > > > > <desired GRO types (IPV4_TCP | IPV6_TCP, ...)>
> > > > > > <probably type specific params>
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > };
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct rte_gro_tbl;
> > > > > > strct rte_gro_tbl *rte_gro_tbl_create(const struct
> > > > > > rte_gro_tbl_param *param);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > void rte_gro_tbl_destroy(struct rte_gro_tbl *tbl);
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I agree with you. It's necessary to provide more fine-grained
> > > > > control APIs to
> > > > > applications. But what's 'packet_timeout_cycles' used for? Is it for
> > > > > TCP packets?
> > > >
> > > > For any packets that sits in the gro_table for too long.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > * process packets, might store some packets inside the GRO table,
> > > > > > * returns number of filled entries in pkt[]
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > uint32_t rte_gro_tbl_process(struct rte_gro_tbl *tbl, struct
> > > > > > rte_mbuf *pkt[], uint32_t num);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > * retirieves up to num timeouted packets from the table.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > uint32_t rtre_gro_tbl_timeout(struct rte_gro_tbl *tbl, uint64_t
> > > > > > tmt, struct rte_mbuf *pkt[], uint32_t num);
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently, we implement GRO as RX callback, whose processing logic is
> > > > > simple:
> > > > > receive burst packets -> perform GRO -> return to application. GRO
> > > > > stops after
> > > > > finishing processing received packets. If we provide
> > > > > rte_gro_tbl_timeout, when
> > > > > and who will call it?
> > > >
> > > > I mean the following scenario:
> > > > We receive a packet, find it is eligible for GRO and put it into
> > > > gro_table
> > > > in expectation - there would be more packets for the same flow.
> > > > But it could happen that we would never (or for some long time) receive
> > > > any new packets for that flow.
> > > > So the first packet would never be delivered to the upper layer,
> > > > or delivered too late.
> > > > So we need a mechanism to extract such not merged packets
> > > > and push them to the upper layer.
> > > > My thought it would be application responsibility to call it from time
> > > > to time.
> > > > That's actually another reason why I think we shouldn't use application
> > > > to always use RX callbacks for GRO.
> > >
> > > Currently, we only provide one reassembly function,
> > > rte_gro_reassemble_burst,
> > > which merges N inputted packets at a time. After finishing processing
> > > these
> > > packets, it returns all of them and reset hashing tables. Therefore, there
> > > are no packets in hashing tables after rte_gro_reassemble_burst returns.
> >
> > Ok, sorry I missed that part with rte_hash_reset().
> > So gro_ressemble_burst() performs only inline processing on current input
> > packets
> > and doesn't try to save packets for future merging, correct?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Such approach indeed is much lightweight and doesn't require any extra
> > timeouts and flush().
> > So my opinion let's keep it like that - nice and simple.
> > BTW, I think in that case we don't need any hashtables (or any other
> > persistent strucures)at all.
> > What we need is just a set of GROs (tcp4, tpc6, etc.) we want to perform on
> > given array of packets.
>
> Beside GRO types that are desired to perform, maybe it also needs
> max_pkt_size and
> some GRO type specific information?
Yes, but we don't need the actual hash-tables, etc. inside.
Passing something like struct gro_param seems enough.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If we provide rte_gro_tbl_timeout, we also need to provide another
> > > reassmebly
> > > function, like rte_gro_reassemble, which processes one given packet at a
> > > time and won't reset hashing tables. Applications decide when to flush
> > > packets
> > > in hashing tables. And rte_gro_tbl_timeout is one of the ways that can be
> > > used
> > > to flush the packets. Do you mean that?
> >
> > Yes, that's what I meant, but as I said above - I think your approach is
> > probably
> > more preferable - it is much simpler and lightweight.
> > Konstantin
> >
