> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin [mailto:konstantin.anan...@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:03 AM
> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com>; Olivier MATZ
> <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; Shahaf Shuler
> <shah...@mellanox.com>; Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/5] ethdev: introduce Tx generic tunnel
> offloads
>
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > This patch introduce new TX offloads flag for devices that
> > > > > > > > support tunnel agnostic checksum and TSO offloads.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The support from the device is for inner and outer
> > > > > > > > checksums on IPV4/TCP/UDP and TSO for *any packet with the
> > > > > > > > following
> > > format*:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > < some headers > / [optional IPv4/IPv6] / [optional
> > > > > > > > TCP/UDP] / <some
> > > > > > > > headers> / [optional inner IPv4/IPv6] / [optional TCP/UDP]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For example the following packets can use this feature:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. eth / ipv4 / udp / VXLAN / ip / tcp 2. eth / ipv4 / GRE
> > > > > > > > / MPLS /
> > > > > > > > ipv4 / udp
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So in terms of usage - what is the difference with current
> > > > > > > TSO
> > > types?
> > > > > > > Konstantin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Traditionally, HW only recognize "known" tunnel type, do TSO
> > > > > > calculation based on L3/L4 headers known to tunnel type. For
> > > > > > example, it must be
> > > > > > L2 header after VXLAN, then L3. While this Generic offloading
> > > > > > provides inner/outer L3/L4 header info(len and offset) to HW,
> > > > > > and thus tunnel info become less important. Please note the
> > > > > > MPLS over GRE tunnel in last example above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, but I wonder when the user would like to do TSO on tunnel
> > > > > packet, for this offload - would he need to do something
> > > > > differently from what he has to do now:
> > > > > raise PKT_TX_TCP_SEG and related flags, raise appropriate
> > > > > PKT_TX_TUNNEL_* flag, fill l2_len, l3_len,
> > > l4_len,tso_segsz,outer_l2_len,outer_l3_len?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, these fields are sufficient except PKT_TX_TUNNEL_*, major
> > > > target of this new feature is to support "unknown" tunnel
> > > > offloading, it
> > > supports "known"
> > > > tunnel type as well.
> > >
> > > Ok, but user would still need to set some flag to indicate that this
> > > is a tunnel packet, and he wants TSO over it, right?
> > > For pre-defined tunnel types it can be one of PKT_TX_TUNNEL_* (which
> > > actually means that user still have to know tunnel type anyway?) But
> > > for some not defined tunnel type - what it would be?
> > > Konstantin
> > >
> >
> > As this feature target to TX path, Outer length as tunnel indication,
> > leave it empty if tunnel not defined.
>
> Sorry, I didn't get it.
> We need to let PMD know that it is a tunnel packet, right?
> So we do need to raise PKT_TX_TUNNEL_* flag.
>
In my current code, mbuf.outer_l2_len is used to test tunnel packet.
Agree a new tunnel flag would be better.
> >
> > But I think it good to define something like:
> > PKT_TX_TUNNEL_GENERIC = PKT_TX_TUNNEL_MASK
>
> Yes, that's an option, I would probably name it PKT_TX_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN.
>
> > And a new flag PKT_TX_OUTER_UDP, how do you think?
>
> Not sure why do we need it?
> HW still needs to know outer_l4_type to be able to work correctly?
For tunnel type like vxlan, if outer UDP present, hw has to update UDP
length field for each TSO packet segment.
> Konstantin
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > PKT_TX_TUNNEL_VXLAN has to be used as a hint if outer UDP expected.
> > > >
> > > > > Konstantin
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xueming Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > > > > > > > b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h index 1a5b4cdc5..d8d08ccb2
> > > > > > > > 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > > > > > > > @@ -979,6 +979,16 @@ struct rte_eth_conf {
> > > > > > > > * the same mempool and has refcnt = 1.
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY 0x00020000
> > > > > > > > +/**< Device supports generic tunnel checksum and TSO
> offloading.
> > > > > > > > + * Checksum and TSO are done based on following mbuf fields:
> > > > > > > > + * - Length of each header
> > > > > > > > + * - Type of outer/inner L3 type, IPv4 or IPv6
> > > > > > > > + * - Type of outer/inner L4 type, TCP or UDP.
> > > > > > > > + * - PKT_TX_TUNNEL_VXLAN implies outer UDP type.
> > > > > > > > + * - PKT_TX_TCP_SEG implies inner TCP type.
> > > > > > > > + * Tunnel type is optional except PKT_TX_TUNNEL_VXLAN to
> > > > > > > > +hint outer
> > > > > UDP.
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > +#define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_GENERIC_TNL_CKSUM_TSO 0x00040000
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > > * If new Tx offload capabilities are defined, they also
> > > > > > > > must be
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 2.13.3
