> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kavanagh, Mark B
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:42 PM
> To: Hu, Jiayu <jiayu...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Tan, Jianfeng <jianfeng....@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support
>
> >From: Hu, Jiayu
> >Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 11:01 AM
> >To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Kavanagh, Mark B
> ><mark.b.kavan...@intel.com>
> >Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Tan, Jianfeng <jianfeng....@intel.com>
> >Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support
> >
> >Hi Konstantin and Mark,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 5:36 PM
> >> To: Hu, Jiayu <jiayu...@intel.com>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kavanagh, Mark B <mark.b.kavan...@intel.com>; Tan,
> >> Jianfeng <jianfeng....@intel.com>
> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Hu, Jiayu
> >> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:29 AM
> >> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> >> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kavanagh, Mark B <mark.b.kavan...@intel.com>; Tan,
> >> Jianfeng <jianfeng....@intel.com>
> >> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support
> >> >
> >> > Hi Konstantin,
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> >> > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:47 PM
> >> > > To: Hu, Jiayu <jiayu...@intel.com>
> >> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kavanagh, Mark B <mark.b.kavan...@intel.com>;
> >> Tan,
> >> > > Jianfeng <jianfeng....@intel.com>
> >> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Jiayu,
> >> > >
> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > From: Hu, Jiayu
> >> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 7:07 AM
> >> > > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> >> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kavanagh, Mark B <mark.b.kavan...@intel.com>;
> >> Tan,
> >> > > Jianfeng <jianfeng....@intel.com>
> >> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hi Konstantin,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 06:10:37AM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Hi Jiayu,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> >> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 12:18 PM
> >> > > > > > > > To: Hu, Jiayu <jiayu...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> > > > > > > > Cc: Kavanagh, Mark B <mark.b.kavan...@intel.com>; Tan,
> >> Jianfeng
> >> > > <jianfeng....@intel.com>
> >> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] gso: add TCP/IPv4 GSO support
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > result, when all of its GSOed segments are freed, the
> >> > > > > > > > > packet
> >is
> >> > > freed
> >> > > > > > > > > automatically.
> >> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.c
> >b/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.c
> >> > > > > > > > > index dda50ee..95f6ea6 100644
> >> > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.c
> >> > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.c
> >> > > > > > > > > @@ -33,18 +33,53 @@
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > #include <errno.h>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > +#include <rte_log.h>
> >> > > > > > > > > +
> >> > > > > > > > > #include "rte_gso.h"
> >> > > > > > > > > +#include "gso_common.h"
> >> > > > > > > > > +#include "gso_tcp4.h"
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > int
> >> > > > > > > > > rte_gso_segment(struct rte_mbuf *pkt,
> >> > > > > > > > > - struct rte_gso_ctx gso_ctx __rte_unused,
> >> > > > > > > > > + struct rte_gso_ctx gso_ctx,
> >> > > > > > > > > struct rte_mbuf **pkts_out,
> >> > > > > > > > > uint16_t nb_pkts_out)
> >> > > > > > > > > {
> >> > > > > > > > > + struct rte_mempool *direct_pool, *indirect_pool;
> >> > > > > > > > > + struct rte_mbuf *pkt_seg;
> >> > > > > > > > > + uint16_t gso_size;
> >> > > > > > > > > + uint8_t ipid_delta;
> >> > > > > > > > > + int ret = 1;
> >> > > > > > > > > +
> >> > > > > > > > > if (pkt == NULL || pkts_out == NULL || nb_pkts_out < 1)
> >> > > > > > > > > return -EINVAL;
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > - pkts_out[0] = pkt;
> >> > > > > > > > > + if (gso_ctx.gso_size >= pkt->pkt_len ||
> >> > > > > > > > > + (pkt->packet_type & gso_ctx.gso_types)
> >> > > > > > > > > !=
> >> > > > > > > > > + pkt->packet_type) {
> >> > > > > > > > > + pkts_out[0] = pkt;
> >> > > > > > > > > + return ret;
> >> > > > > > > > > + }
> >> > > > > > > > > +
> >> > > > > > > > > + direct_pool = gso_ctx.direct_pool;
> >> > > > > > > > > + indirect_pool = gso_ctx.indirect_pool;
> >> > > > > > > > > + gso_size = gso_ctx.gso_size;
> >> > > > > > > > > + ipid_delta = gso_ctx.ipid_flag == RTE_GSO_IPID_INCREASE;
> >> > > > > > > > > +
> >> > > > > > > > > + if (is_ipv4_tcp(pkt->packet_type)) {
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Probably we need here:
> >> > > > > > > > If (is_ipv4_tcp(pkt->packet_type) && (gso_ctx->gso_types &
> >> > > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO) != 0) {...
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Sorry, actually it probably should be:
> >> > > > > > > If (pkt->ol_flags & (PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_IPV4) ==
> >> PKT_TX_IPV4
> >> > > &&
> >> > > > > > > (gso_ctx->gso_types & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO) != 0) {...
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I don't quite understand why the GSO library should be aware if
> >the
> >> TSO
> >> > > > > > flag is set or not. Applications can query device TSO capability
> >> before
> >> > > > > > they call the GSO library. Do I misundertsand anything?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Additionally, we don't need to check if the packet is a TCP/IPv4
> >> packet
> >> > > here?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Well, right now PMD we doesn't rely on ptype to figure out what
> >type
> >> of
> >> > > packet and
> >> > > > > what TX offload have to be performed.
> >> > > > > Instead it looks at TX part of ol_flags, and
> >> > > > > My thought was that as what we doing is actually TSO in SW, it
> >> > > > > would
> >> be
> >> > > good
> >> > > > > to use the same API here too.
> >> > > > > Also with that approach, by setting ol_flags properly user can use
> >the
> >> > > same gso_ctx and still
> >> > > > > specify what segmentation to perform on a per-packet basis.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Alternative way is to rely on ptype to distinguish should
> >segmentation
> >> be
> >> > > performed on that package or not.
> >> > > > > The only advantage I see here is that if someone would like to add
> >> GSO
> >> > > for some new protocol,
> >> > > > > he wouldn't need to introduce new TX flag value for mbuf.ol_flags.
> >> > > > > Though he still would need to update TX_OFFLOAD_* capabilities and
> >> > > probably packet_type definitions.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > So from my perspective first variant (use HW TSO API) is more
> >> plausible.
> >> > > > > Wonder what is your and Mark opinions here?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In the first choice, you mean:
> >> > > > the GSO library uses gso_ctx->gso_types and mbuf->ol_flags to call a
> >> > > specific GSO
> >> > > > segmentation function (e.g. gso_tcp4_segment(), gso_tunnel_xxx()) for
> >> > > each input packet.
> >> > > > Applications should parse the packet type, and set an exactly correct
> >> > > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO
> >> > > > flag to gso_types and ol_flags according to the packet type. That is,
> >the
> >> > > value of gso_types
> >> > > > is on a per-packet basis. Using gso_ctx->gso_types and mbuf->ol_flags
> >> at
> >> > > the same time
> >> > > > is because that DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO only tells tunnelling type and
> >> the
> >> > > inner L4 type, and
> >> > > > we need to know L3 type by ol_flags. With this design, HW
> >> segmentation
> >> > > and SW segmentation
> >> > > > are indeed consistent.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If I understand it correctly, applications need to set 'ol_flags =
> >> > > PKT_TX_IPV4' and
> >> > > > 'gso_types = DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_TNL_TSO' for a
> >> > > "ether+ipv4+udp+vxlan+ether+ipv4+
> >> > > > tcp+payload" packet. But PKT_TX_IPV4 just present the inner L3 type
> >for
> >> > > tunneled packet.
> >> > > > How about the outer L3 type? Always assume the inner and the outer L3
> >> > > type are the same?
> >> > >
> >> > > It think that for that case you'll have to set in ol_flags:
> >> > >
> >> > > PKT_TX_IPV4 | PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 | PKT_TX_TUNNEL_VXLAN |
> >> > > PKT_TX_TCP_SEG
> >> >
> >> > OK, so it means PKT_TX_TCP_SEG is also used for tunneled TSO. The
> >> > GSO library doesn't need gso_types anymore.
> >>
> >> You still might need gso_ctx.gso_types to let user limit what types of
> >> segmentation
> >> that particular gso_ctx supports.
> >> An alternative would be to assume that each gso_ctx supports all
> >> currently implemented segmentations.
> >> This is possible too, but probably not very convenient to the user.
> >
> >Hmm, make sense.
> >
> >One thing to confirm: the value of gso_types should be DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO,
> >or new macros?
>
> Hi Jiayu, Konstantin,
>
> I think that the existing macros are fine, as they provide a consistent view
> of segmentation capabilities to the application/user.
+1
I also think it is better to re-use DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO.
>
> I was initially concerned that they might be too coarse-grained (i.e. only
> IPv4 is currently supported, and not IPv6), but as per Konstantin's
> previous example, the DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_*_TSO macros can be used in concert with
> the packet type to determine whether a packet should
> be fragmented or not.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> >
> >Jiayu
> >> Konstantin
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The first choice makes HW and SW segmentation are totally the same.
> >> > Applications just need to parse the packet and set proper ol_flags, and
> >> > the GSO library uses ol_flags to decide which segmentation function to
> >use.
> >> > I think it's better than the second choice which depending on ptype to
> >> > choose segmentation function.
> >> >
> >> > Jiayu
> >> > >
> >> > > Konstantin
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Jiayu
> >> > > > > Konstantin
