[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and csum forwarding engine

Ananyev, Konstantin konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Mon Jan 26 15:15:12 CET 2015


Hi Olivier,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:07 PM
> To: Liu, Jijiang; Ananyev, Konstantin; Zhang, Helin
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] enhance TX checksum command and csum forwarding engine
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 01/26/2015 07:02 AM, Liu, Jijiang wrote:
> >> I tried to repeat Olivier test-cases on my box.
> >> Though, I didn't use test-pmd cusmonly and  i40ePMD logic, but filled TCD and
> >> TDD mostly from hardcoded values.
> >> That's  what I got:
> >>
> >> 4 input packets:
> >> a) ETHER/IPv4/UDP/VXLAN/ETHER/IPV4/TCP
> >> b) ETHER/IPv4/GRE/ETHER/IPV4/TCP
> >> c) ETHER/IPv4/GRE/IPV4/TCP
> >> d) ETHER/IPv4/IPV4/TCP
> >>
> >> 1/ L4TUNT==1(I40E_TXD_CTX_UDP_TUNNELING):
> >> a),b): all checksums ok
> >> c),d): not transmitted by HW.
> >>
> >> 2/ L4TUNT==2(I40E_TXD_CTX_GRE_TUNNELING):
> >> a) b),c): all checksums ok
> >> d): not transmitted by HW.
> >>
> >> 3/ L4TUNT==0(UNKNOWN):
> >> a),b),c),d): all checksums ok
> >>
> >> So yes, it seems that L4TUNT==0 works perfectly ok for all cases, as long as
> >> L4TUNLEN and other TCD values are setup properly.
> >> Which makes me think, that  probably we can do what you suggested: just use
> >> L4TUNT=0 for all cases.
> >> Though as Jijiang said, we waiting for confirmation from FVL guys, that there are
> >> no hidden implications with that approach.
> >
> > Yes, the L4TUNT=0 is ok  for all cases.
> 
> Great! Thanks for testing on your side too.
> 
> > But we still need to get confirmation from FVL guys, probably there are some issues in HW/FW.
> > I and Helin will confirm this with FVL guys ASAP.
> 
> OK, thank you.
> 
> >> Another thing - IPIP seems to work ok by HW.
> >> There is something wrong on our (PMD/test-pmd) side.
> >> I think at least we have to remove the following check:
> >> if (!l2_len) {
> >>                 PMD_DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "L2 length set to 0");
> >>                 return;
> >>         }
> >> in i40e_txd_enable_checksum().
> >
> > Yes, for IPIP, the check should be removed.
> 
> Yes, I think these lines should be removed for 2 reasons:
> - it may be the cause of ipip tunnel not working
> - we shouldn't do these kind of tests in dataplane. I think we have to
>   suppose that the data passed to the PMD is valid.
> 
> I'll redo the test with ipip tomorrow with this fix and let you
> know the result. If it works, I'll add this in the next version
> of the patch.

While you are on this, can I suggest you'll add debug logging for TCD and TDD we are writing to the TX ring?
Something like that:

+                       PMD_TX_LOG(DEBUG, "mbuf: %p, TCD[%u]:\n"
+                               "tunneling_params: %#x;\n"
+                               "l2tag2: %#hx;\n"
+                               "rsvd: %#hx;\n"
+                               "type_cmd_tso_mss: %#lx;\n",
+                               tx_pkt, tx_id,
+                               ctx_txd->tunneling_params,
+                               ctx_txd->l2tag2,
+                               ctx_txd->rsvd,
+                               ctx_txd->type_cmd_tso_mss);

And same for TDD. 
It  helped me a lot to figure out what is going on, when I did my tests.
Probably would be useful for other people too.

Konstantin

> 
> Regards,
> Olivier


More information about the dev mailing list