On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 03:27:37PM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com> > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 9:48 PM > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com> > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>; Shahaf Shuler > > <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > > Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type > > identification > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 01:32:49PM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 5:28 PM > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com> > > > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>; Shahaf Shuler > > > > <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz > > > > <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type > > > > identification > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 08:05:13AM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 3:29 PM > > > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com> > > > > > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Olivier > > > > > > Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; Adrien Mazarguil > > > > > > <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel type > > > > > > identification > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 12:57:58PM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > > > > > > +Adrien > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 9:03 PM > > > > > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com> > > > > > > > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > > > > > > > > Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] net/mlx5: support Rx tunnel > > > > > > > > type identification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +Olivier, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 07:20:13PM +0800, Xueming Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > This patch introduced tunnel type identification based on > > > > > > > > > flow rules. > > > > > > > > > If flows of multiple tunnel types built on same queue, > > > > > > > > > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK will be returned, user application > > > > > > > > > could use bits in flow mark as tunnel type identifier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For an application it will mean the packet embed all tunnel > > > > > > > > types defined in DPDK, to make such thing you need a > > > > > > > > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN which does not exists currently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN definition, but removed > > > > > > > due to > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > So I think it good to add it in the patchset of reviewed by > > > > > > > Adrien. > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even with it, the application still needs to parse the > > > > > > > > packet to discover which tunnel the packet embed, is there > > > > > > > > any benefit having such bit? Not so sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With a tunnel flag, checksum status represent inner checksum. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure this is generic enough, MLX5 behaves as this, but how > > > > > > behaves other NICs? It should have specific bits for inner > > > > > > checksum if all NIC don't have the same behavior. > > > > > > > > > > From my understanding, if outer checksum invalid, the packet can't > > > > > be received as a tunneled packet, but a normal packet, thus > > > > > checksum flags always result of inner for a valid tunneled packet. > > > > > > > > Yes, since checksum validation information covers all layers at once > > > > (outermost to the innermost recognized), the presence of an "unknown > > > > tunnel" > > > > bit implicitly means outer headers are OK. > > > > > > > > Now regarding the addition of RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN, the main > > > > issue I see is that it's implicit, as in getting 0 after and'ing > > > > packet types with RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK means either not present or > > > > unknown type. > > > > > > How about define RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_UNKNOWN same ask > > > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK? And'ding packet types always return a non-zero > > > value. > > > > I mean the value already exists, it's implicitly 0. Adding one with the > > same value as > > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MASK could be seen as a waste of a value otherwise usable > > for an actual tunnel type > > (there are only 4 bits). > > > > > > How about not setting any tunnel bit and let applications rely on > > > > the presence of RTE_PTYPE_INNER_* to determine that there is a > > > > tunnel of unknown type? The rationale being that a tunneled packet > > > > without an inner payload is > > kind of pointless anyway. > > > > > > An unknown type doesn't break anything, neither enum bits, > > > straightforward IMHO. > > > > Keep in mind that mbuf packet types report what is identified. All the > > definitions in this file name a > > specific protocol. For instance there is no such definition as "L3 present" > > or "L4 present". "Tunnel > > present" doesn't make a lot of sense on its own either. > > > > Don't you agree that reporting at least one inner ptype while leaving > > tunnel ptype to 0 automatically > > addresses this issue? > > Currently, no inner L2 ptype, so for packet with only L2, it will be > recognized as non-tunnel packet.
Applications can live with it. Don't bother with a ptype API change at this point, it raises more issues than it solves. Given the size of the series, let's deal with that later through a separate task and according to user feedback. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND
