>
> >At this point we need to have only pseudo-header checksum for TSO. Maybe
> there will be new requirements, but that's something I cannot predict at
> this point.
>
> Ok great, then we'll add a patch for ENA for v14, unless you guys would
> like to do it yourself.
>
That'd be great!
>We
Hi Jan,
>Hello,
>>Is there any update on that subject?
>At this point we need to have only pseudo-header checksum for TSO. Maybe
there will be new requirements, but that's something I cannot predict at this
point.
Ok great, then we'll add a patch for ENA for v14, unless you guys would li
Hello,
> Is there any update on that subject?
>
At this point we need to have only pseudo-header checksum for TSO. Maybe
there will be new requirements, but that's something I cannot predict at
this point.
> So it seems that standard pseudo-header checksum calculation should be
> enough.
Hi Jan,
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> >Hello,
>
> >Sorry for late response.
>
> >From ENA perspective, we need to dig deeper about the requirements and use
> >cases, but I'm pretty confident (95%) that ena will
> need to implement tx_prep() API. There is at least one >scenario, when HW
> relay on partial
On 12/6/2016 3:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 11:03 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> We need attention of every PMD developers on this thread.
>>
>> Reminder of what Konstantin suggested:
>> "
>> - if the PMD supports TX offloads AND
>> - if to be able use any of these offloads the upper l
> > > This means vmxnet3 PMD also should be updated, right?
> >
> > Yes, that's right.
> >
> > >Should that update
> > > be part of tx_prep patchset? Or separate patch?
> >
> > Another question I suppose is who will do the actual patch for vmxnet3.
> > Yong, are you ok to do the patch for vmxnet3
Hi Jan,
>Hello,
>Sorry for late response.
>From ENA perspective, we need to dig deeper about the requirements and use
>cases, but I'm pretty confident (95%) that ena will need to implement
>tx_prep() API. There is at least one >scenario, when HW relay on partial
>checksum.
Could you let us k
Hello,
Sorry for late response.
>From ENA perspective, we need to dig deeper about the requirements and use
cases, but I'm pretty confident (95%) that ena will need to implement
tx_prep() API. There is at least one scenario, when HW relay on partial
checksum.
Jan
an Medala ; Jakub
> Palider ; John Daley ; Adrien
> Mazarguil ; Alejandro Lucero
> ; Rasesh Mody
> ; Jacob, Jerin ;
> Yuanhan Liu ; Kulasek, TomaszX
> ; olivier.m...@6wind.com
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12 0/6] add Tx preparation
>
>
> Hi Ferruh,
>
> &g
Lucero
> > >> ; Rasesh Mody
> > >> ; Jacob, Jerin ;
> > >> Yuanhan Liu ; Kulasek, TomaszX
> > >> ; olivier.m...@6wind.com
> > >> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12 0/6] add Tx preparation
> > >>
> > >> Hi
> >
etanel Belgazal ; Evgeny
> Schemeilin ; Alejandro Lucero
> ; Yong Wang ;
> Andrew Rybchenko ; Hemant Agrawal
> ; Kulasek, TomaszX
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12 0/6] add Tx preparation
>
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:13:14AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
&
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:13:14AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
> Hi Yliu,
>
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:53:42PM +, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > > Please, we need a comment for each driver saying
> > > > "it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"
> > > > or
> > >
Hi Yliu,
>
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:53:42PM +, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > Please, we need a comment for each driver saying
> > > "it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"
> > > or
> > > "yes we have to implement tx_prepare or TSO will not work in this mode"
> > >
>
> So
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 08:31:35PM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > Hi Konstantin,
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:56:26AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Adrien,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:43:52PM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > >
t;>
> >> Cc: Harish Patil ; dev@dpdk.org; Rahul Lakkireddy
> >> ; Stephen Hurd
> >> ; Jan Medala ; Jakub
> >> Palider ; John Daley ; Adrien
> >> Mazarguil ; Alejandro Lucero
> >> ; Rasesh Mody
> >> ; Jacob, Jerin ;
> >> Yuanhan Liu ;
akkireddy
>> ; Stephen Hurd
>> ; Jan Medala ; Jakub
>> Palider ; John Daley ; Adrien
>> Mazarguil ; Alejandro Lucero
>> ; Rasesh Mody
>> ; Jacob, Jerin ;
>> Yuanhan Liu ; Kulasek, TomaszX
>> ; olivier.m...@6wind.com
>> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:53:42PM +, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > Please, we need a comment for each driver saying
> > "it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"
> > or
> > "yes we have to implement tx_prepare or TSO will not work in this mode"
> >
Sorry for late. For virtio, I th
On 12/06/2016 06:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 11/28/2016 11:03 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
We need attention of every PMD developers on this thread.
Reminder of what Konstantin suggested:
"
- if the PMD supports TX offloads AND
- if to be able use any of these offloads the upper layer SW would
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:56:26AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> > Hi Adrien,
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:43:52PM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:00:55AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > > > [
lider ; John Daley ; Adrien
> Mazarguil ; Alejandro Lucero
> ; Rasesh Mody
> ; Jacob, Jerin ;
> Yuanhan Liu ; Kulasek, TomaszX
> ; olivier.m...@6wind.com
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12 0/6] add Tx preparation
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > > 2
On 11/28/2016 11:03 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> We need attention of every PMD developers on this thread.
>
> Reminder of what Konstantin suggested:
> "
> - if the PMD supports TX offloads AND
> - if to be able use any of these offloads the upper layer SW would have to:
> * modify the content
Hi Konstantin,
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:56:26AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
> Hi Adrien,
>
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:43:52PM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:00:55AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > > On W
Hi Adrien,
>
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:43:52PM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> [...]
> > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:00:55AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:54:50AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > Do you hav
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:43:52PM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
[...]
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:00:55AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:54:50AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > Do you have anything particular in mind
Hi Adrien,
>
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:00:55AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> [...]
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:54:50AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > Something is definitely needed here, and only PMDs can provide it. I
> > > > > think
>
Hi Konstantin,
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:00:55AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
[...]
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:54:50AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Something is definitely needed here, and only PMDs can provide it. I
> > > > think
> > > > applications should not h
Hi
> >
> > 2016-11-30 17:42, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > > >Please, we need a comment for each driver saying
> > > > >"it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"
> > > > >or
> > > > >"yes we have to implement tx_prepare or TSO will not work in this
> > mode"
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
ley ; Adrien
> Mazarguil ; Alejandro Lucero
> ; Rasesh Mody
> ; Jacob, Jerin ;
> Yuanhan Liu ; Yong Wang
> ; Kulasek, TomaszX
> ; olivier.m...@6wind.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12 0/6] add Tx preparation
>
> 2016-11-30 17:42, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > >
Hi Adrien,
>
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:54:50AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> [...]
> > > Something is definitely needed here, and only PMDs can provide it. I think
> > > applications should not have to clear checksum fields or initialize them
> > > to
> > > some mag
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:58:31AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-12-01 08:15, Adrien Mazarguil:
> > I'm perhaps a bit pessimistic mind you, but I do not think tx_prepare() will
> > remain optional for long. Sure, PMDs that do not implement it do not care,
> > I'm focusing on applications, fo
Hi Thomas,
On Monday, November 11/28/16, 2016 at 16:33:06 +0530, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> We need attention of every PMD developers on this thread.
>
> Reminder of what Konstantin suggested:
> "
> - if the PMD supports TX offloads AND
> - if to be able use any of these offloads the upper layer SW
On 11/30/2016 6:26 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-11-30 17:42, Ananyev, Konstantin:
Please, we need a comment for each driver saying
"it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"
or
"yes we have to implement tx_prepare or TSO will not work in this mode"
>>>
2016-12-01 08:15, Adrien Mazarguil:
> I'm perhaps a bit pessimistic mind you, but I do not think tx_prepare() will
> remain optional for long. Sure, PMDs that do not implement it do not care,
> I'm focusing on applications, for which the performance impact of calling
> tx_prepare() followed by tx_b
Hi Tomasz,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:30:54AM +, Kulasek, TomaszX wrote:
[...]
> > > In my opinion the second approach is both faster to applications and
> > > more friendly from a usability perspective, am I missing something
> > obvious?
> >
> > I think it was not clearly explained in this
Hi Konstantin,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:54:50AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
[...]
> > Something is definitely needed here, and only PMDs can provide it. I think
> > applications should not have to clear checksum fields or initialize them to
> > some magic value, same goes for any other off
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:26:36PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-11-30 17:42, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > >Please, we need a comment for each driver saying
> > > >"it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"
> > > >or
> > > >"yes we have to implement tx_prepare or TSO will not
2016-11-30 17:42, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > >Please, we need a comment for each driver saying
> > >"it is OK, we do not need any checksum preparation for TSO"
> > >or
> > >"yes we have to implement tx_prepare or TSO will not work in this mode"
> > >
> >
> > qede PMD doesn?t currently support TSO ye
>
>
>
>Hi Harish,
>>
>>
>> >We need attention of every PMD developers on this thread.
>> >
>> >Reminder of what Konstantin suggested:
>> >"
>> >- if the PMD supports TX offloads AND
>> >- if to be able use any of these offloads the upper layer SW would have
>> >to:
>> >* modify the contents o
Hi Harish,
>
>
> >We need attention of every PMD developers on this thread.
> >
> >Reminder of what Konstantin suggested:
> >"
> >- if the PMD supports TX offloads AND
> >- if to be able use any of these offloads the upper layer SW would have
> >to:
> >* modify the contents of the packet OR
>We need attention of every PMD developers on this thread.
>
>Reminder of what Konstantin suggested:
>"
>- if the PMD supports TX offloads AND
>- if to be able use any of these offloads the upper layer SW would have
>to:
>* modify the contents of the packet OR
>* obey HW specific restrict
On Mon,
??
Nov 28, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> We need attention of every PMD developers on this thread.
>
> Reminder of what Konstantin suggested:
> "
> - if the PMD supports TX offloads AND
> - if to be able use any of these offloads the upper layer SW would have to:
> * modif
> ; Jakub Palider ; John Daley
> > (johndale) ; Adrien Mazarguil
> > ; Alejandro Lucero
> > ; Harish Patil
> > ; Rasesh Mody ; Jerin
> > Jacob ; Yuanhan Liu
> > ; Yong Wang
> > Cc: Tomasz Kulasek ;
> > konstantin.ananyev at intel.com; olivier.matz at 6wind
Hi Adrien,
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:03:06PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > We need attention of every PMD developers on this thread.
>
> I've been following this thread from the beginning while working on rte_flow
> and wanted to see where it was headed before replying. (I know, v11 was
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 09:50
> To: Adrien Mazarguil ; Kulasek, TomaszX
>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin ;
> olivier.matz at 6wind.com
> Subject: Re: [
2016-11-30 08:40, Adrien Mazarguil:
[...]
> I understand tx_prep() automates this process, however I'm wondering why
> isn't the TX burst function doing that itself. Using nb_mtu_seg_max as an
> example, tx_prep() has an extra check in case of TSO that the TX burst
> function does not perform. This
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:03:06PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> We need attention of every PMD developers on this thread.
I've been following this thread from the beginning while working on rte_flow
and wanted to see where it was headed before replying. (I know, v11 was
submitted about 1 month
> ; Alejandro Lucero
> ; Harish Patil
> ; Rasesh Mody ; Jerin
> Jacob ; Yuanhan Liu
> ; Yong Wang
> Cc: Tomasz Kulasek ;
> konstantin.ananyev at intel.com; olivier.matz at 6wind.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12 0/6] add Tx preparation
>
> We need attention of
We need attention of every PMD developers on this thread.
Reminder of what Konstantin suggested:
"
- if the PMD supports TX offloads AND
- if to be able use any of these offloads the upper layer SW would have to:
* modify the contents of the packet OR
* obey HW specific restrictions
then i
As discussed in that thread:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/023603.html
Different NIC models depending on HW offload requested might impose
different requirements on packets to be TX-ed in terms of:
- Max number of fragments per packet allowed
- Max number of fragments per TSO
49 matches
Mail list logo
