On 10/25/2017 1:16 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:11:08AM -0700, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/23/2017 10:42 AM, Roger B. Melton wrote:
>>> On 10/20/17 3:04 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2017 10:24 AM, Roger B Melton wrote:
>>>>> When copying VLAN tags from the RX descriptor to the vlan_tci field
>>>>> in the mbuf header, igb_rxtx.c:eth_igb_recv_pkts() and
>>>>> eth_igb_recv_scattered_pkts() both assume that the VLAN tag is always
>>>>> little endian. While i350, i354 and /i350vf VLAN non-loopback
>>>>> packets are stored little endian, VLAN tags in loopback packets for
>>>>> those devices are big endian.
>>>>>
>>>>> For i350, i354 and i350vf VLAN loopback packets, swap the tag when
>>>>> copying from the RX descriptor to the mbuf header. This will ensure
>>>>> that the mbuf vlan_tci is always little endian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger B Melton <rmel...@cisco.com>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -946,9 +954,16 @@ eth_igb_recv_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf
>>>>> **rx_pkts,
>>>>>
>>>>> rxm->hash.rss = rxd.wb.lower.hi_dword.rss;
>>>>> hlen_type_rss =
>>>>> rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxd.wb.lower.lo_dword.data);
>>>>> - /* Only valid if PKT_RX_VLAN_PKT set in pkt_flags */
>>>>> - rxm->vlan_tci = rte_le_to_cpu_16(rxd.wb.upper.vlan);
>>>>> -
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * The vlan_tci field is only valid when PKT_RX_VLAN_PKT is
>>>>> + * set in the pkt_flags field and must be in CPU byte order.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if ((staterr & rte_cpu_to_le_32(E1000_RXDEXT_STATERR_LB)) &&
>>>>> + (rxq->flags & IGB_RXQ_FLAG_LB_BSWAP_VLAN)) {
>>>> This is adding more condition checks into Rx path.
>>>> What is the performance cost of this addition?
>>>
>>> I have not measured the performance cost, but I can collect data. What
>>> specifically are you looking for?
>>>
>>> To be clear the current implementation incorrect as it does not
>>> normalize the vlan tag to CPU byte order before copying it into mbuf and
>>> applications have no visibility to determine if the tag in the mbuf is
>>> big or little endian.
>>>
>>> Do you have any suggestions for an alternative approach to avoid rx
>>> patch checks?
>>
>> No suggestion indeed. And correctness matters.
>>
>> But this add a cost and I wonder how much it is, based on that result it may
>> be
>> possible to do more investigation for alternate solutions or trade-offs.
>>
>> Konstantin, Bruce, Wenzhuo,
>>
>> What do you think, do you have any comment?
>>
> For a 1G driver, is performance really that big an issue?
I don't know. So is this an Ack from you for the patch?
> Unless you
> have a *lot* of 1G ports, I would expect most platforms not to notice an
> extra couple of cycles when dealing with 1G line rates.
>
> /Bruce
>
