Sorry I forget to attach the pcap file. See attached please [the output of TSO and the input of GRO]
BRs, Wisam Jaddo -----Original Message----- From: Wisam Monther Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:24 AM To: 'Hu, Jiayu' Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh; Shahaf Shuler Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature Yes sure, This is the packet I sent for the testpmd "the one that enabled tso" "" p=Ether(src=get_if_hwaddr('ens10'), dst= 'ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff') p.add_payload(Dot1Q(vlan=1)) p.add_payload(IP(dst='11.10.10.21', src='11.10.10.20')) p.add_payload(TCP(sport=2000, dport=3000)) p.add_payload('0'*(1500 - len(p))) sendp(p, iface='ens10', count=1 ) """ And this is the output from TSO "the input for GRO" """ # tcpdump -i ens9 -vvven -vlan tcpdump: listening on ens9, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 262144 bytes 11:20:51.494651 24:8a:07:88:26:6a > 24:8a:07:88:26:5a, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 554: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1, offset 0, flags [none], proto TCP (6), length 540) 11.10.10.20.2000 > 11.10.10.21.3000: Flags [S], cksum 0x411b (correct), seq 0:500, win 8192, length 500 11:20:51.494660 24:8a:07:88:26:6a > 24:8a:07:88:26:5a, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 554: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2, offset 0, flags [none], proto TCP (6), length 540) 11.10.10.20.2000 > 11.10.10.21.3000: Flags [S], cksum 0x3f27 (correct), seq 500:1000, win 8192, length 500 11:20:51.494662 24:8a:07:88:26:6a > 24:8a:07:88:26:5a, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 496: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 3, offset 0, flags [none], proto TCP (6), length 482) 11.10.10.20.2000 > 11.10.10.21.3000: Flags [S], cksum 0xb2e2 (correct), seq 1000:1442, win 8192, length 442 """ BRs, Wisam Jaddo -----Original Message----- From: Hu, Jiayu [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 10:58 AM To: Wisam Monther Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh; Shahaf Shuler Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature Hi Wisam, Can you send me the pcap file of the TSOed packets? I want to see what the packets that the GRO enabled port receives look like. Thanks, Jiayu > -----Original Message----- > From: Wisam Monther [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 3:19 PM > To: Hu, Jiayu <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh <[email protected]>; Shahaf > Shuler <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > Hi Jiayu, > > First of all, I appreciate your efforts with me :) The thing that the > packets didn't dropped when I used a packet with 1500 in total as a > three segments of 500, So, even when enable gro, testpmd will fwd the > received segments as it. > "So according to this behavior we conclude that it's didn't reach the > limit, and also the GRO didn't work" > > Could be there some constraints for MLX driver or MLX NICs regards GRO? > > Best regards, > Wisam Jaddo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hu, Jiayu [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 4:15 AM > To: Wisam Monther > Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh; Shahaf Shuler > Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > Hi Wisam, > > When we perform a similar test on i40e, we find an important thing: > there is a max number limit for mbuf->nb_segs. When the number of MBUF > segments of the packet is larger than this limit, the packet will be dropped. > > The GROed packet has multiple MBUF segments. For vhost-dpdk, it > doesn't have limit for the number of segments. But it's not the same > for all NIC drivers. So I suggest you to check if the MLX driver has this > limit too. > > Thanks, > Jiayu > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wisam Monther [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 7:18 PM > > To: Hu, Jiayu <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh <[email protected]>; Shahaf > > Shuler <[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > > > Hi Jiayu, > > > > Any comment regard what I described? > > > > BRs, > > Wisam Jaddo > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wisam Monther > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 10:49 AM > > To: 'Hu, Jiayu' > > Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh; Shahaf Shuler > > Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > > > Hi Jiayu, > > > > Let me re-describe my topology in a better way, see attached image. > > And it is connected physically as described, and I'm using it with > > MTU > > size=1500 in order to make sure Every port can handle it. > > > > And this is the exact connection between the interfaces, so I'm sure > > the packets received in NIC B machine B is coming from the testpmd > > with GRO enabled. > > > > But even so, I intentionally made the packet size 1500, to be > > divided into 3 * ( 500) fragments using the TSO, and then merged > > into 1500 packet again in the GRO. > > So the every machine can manage this mtu size. > > > > The thing that I need to test GRO with each setups types, "VMs with > > Baremetal with pass through with VFs etc...". > > So I need to see the feature works on least work, it would be nice > > to send IPV4_TCP fragmented packet using "scapy, Iperf" > > And check the fwd packet from GRO directly. > > > > BRs, > > Wisam Jaddo > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hu, Jiayu [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 4:51 AM > > To: Wisam Monther > > Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh; Shahaf Shuler > > Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > > > Hi Wisam, > > > > In the picture of your experiment topology, I guess NIC B in the > > machine B is connected with another interface physically. If so, the > > packets that tcpdump captures are from the physical link. However, > > packets after GROed are multi- segment large packets, which are > > larger than MTU. I am not sure if you have make other configurations > > to enable these large packets to pass the physical link, and there > > is jumbo frame size limit for different NICs. So would you please to > > check this? BTW, you can use the VM to test this GRO feature, since > > large > packets can always pass to the VM. > > > > Thanks, > > Jiayu > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wisam Monther [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 3:37 PM > > > To: Hu, Jiayu <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh <[email protected]>; > Shahaf > > > Shuler <[email protected]> > > > Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > > > > > Hi Jiayu, > > > > > > I'm sorry for bothering you, but could you conform that the > > > feature is working probably Because, what I ever did, I couldn't > > > get the merged packets. > > > > > > BRs, > > > Wisam Jaddo > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wisam Monther > > > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:15 AM > > > To: 'Hu, Jiayu' > > > Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh; Shahaf Shuler > > > Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm using Mellanox NICs, and it is supporting parse packet types. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Wisam Jaddo > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hu, Jiayu [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 8:47 AM > > > To: Wisam Monther > > > Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh; Shahaf Shuler > > > Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Can you tell me what's the NIC type of the GRO-enabled port? > > > > > > Since GRO library uses mbuf->packet_type to parse packet headers, > > > applications need to fill this value before calling GRO reassembly APIs. > > > Otherwise, the GRO can't work correctly. > > > > > > In csum forwarding engine of testpmd, packet_type is filled by NIC > > > drivers. > > > The csum forwarding engine won't set this value. So if your NIC > > > doesn’t support to parse packet types, the value of packet_type is > > > 0 and GRO can't work correctly. > > > > > > BRs, > > > Jiayu > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Wisam Monther [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:25 PM > > > > To: Hu, Jiayu <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh <[email protected]>; > > Shahaf > > > > Shuler <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > > > > > > > Yes it is, > > > > The fragmented packets comes from port1 / NIC b from machine A > > > > to port > > > > 1 in NIC A for machine b So it's received on the port '1', which > > > > is configured gro active on this port. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Wisam Jaddo > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Hu, Jiayu [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 4:21 PM > > > > To: Wisam Monther > > > > Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh; Shahaf Shuler > > > > Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Wisam Monther [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 7:07 PM > > > > > To: Hu, Jiayu <[email protected]> > > > > > Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh <[email protected]>; > > > Shahaf > > > > > Shuler <[email protected]> > > > > > Subject: RE: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > > > > > > > > > Hey Jiayu, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. > > > > > I tried what you said with the csum at fwd mode. > > > > > Even so the GRO didn't works fine. > > > > > > > > > > I even tested with a new methodology. > > > > > Two machines with two different nic for each. > > > > > The methodology that I used to test it is described in the attached > > > > > file. > > > > > > > > > > What I did from gro side: > > > > > """ > > > > > testpmd>gro on 1 > > > > > > > > Does the port number of NIC A in machine B is '1'? When you > > > > enable GRO for port '1', Testpmd only tries to merge packets > > > > received from port > > '1'. > > > > > > > > BRs, > > > > Jiayu > > > > > > > > > Testpmd>set fwd csum > > > > > Testpmd>start > > > > > """ > > > > > And the packet with correct dst mac. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Wisam Jaddo > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Jiayu Hu [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 12:14 PM > > > > > To: Wisam Monther > > > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon; [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh; Shahaf > > > > > Shuler > > > > > Subject: Re: Unable to merge packets using GRO feature > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 07:25:23AM +0000, Wisam Monther wrote: > > > > > > Hello Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this finds you well, I’m trying to test the GRO feature. > > > > > > But I’m stuck with this scenario. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know, GRO is only support TCP_IPV4 packet until now. > > > > > > > > > > > > So I’m trying to test the basic functionality of the > > > > > > feature, as > > following: > > > > > > > > > > > > Start testpmd: > > > > > > > > > > > > “”” > > > > > > > > > > > > ./x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc/build/app/test-pmd/testpmd -n 4 > > > > > > -w > > > > > > 00:0a.0 -w > > > > > > 00:09.0 -- --burst=64 --mbcache=512 --portmask 0xf -i > > > > > > --txd=512 > > > > > > --rxd=512 > > > > > > --nb-cores=9 --rxq=2 --txq=2 --txqflags=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > “”” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then enable GRO at the two ports: > > > > > > > > > > > > “”” > > > > > > > > > > > > Testpmd>gro on 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > Testpmd>gro on 1 > > > > > > > > > > When use GRO in testpmd, there are following things to notice: > > > > > > > > > > 1. In testpmd, GRO is supported by csum forwarding engine. > > > > > Therefore, please use 'set fwd csum' to switch forwarding engine. > > > > > > > > > > 2. By default, csum forwarding engine compulsorily changes > > > > > ethernet addresses. So please make sure that MAC addresses are > > correct. > > > > > > > > > > 3. When enable GRO for port0, csum forwarding engine will > > > > > merge packets received from port0. If there are no packets > > > > > from port1 to port0, you don't need to enable GRO for port1. > > > > > > > > > > 4. GRO library doesn't re-calculate checksums for merged packets. > > > > > If you want merged packets have correct checksum, please > > > > > select HW IP and HW TCP checksum calculation for the port > > > > > which the merged packets are transmitted to in csum forwarding engine. > > > > > This is because the merged packets are multi-segment mbufs, > > > > > but csum forwarding engine doesn't support to calculate > > > > > checksums for multi-segment mbufs in SW. So we need to select > > > > > HW checksum > > > offloading. > > > > > > > > > > e.g. If data flow is "packets -> port0 -> port1", commands > > > > > used in > > > testpmd: > > > > > gro on port0 > > > > > set fwd csum > > > > > csum set ip hw port1 > > > > > csum set tcp hw port1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides, you need to make sure that your PMD driver doesn't > > > > > use vector TX function, since vector function doesn't support > > > > > checksum > > > offloading. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “”” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And trying to send TCP_IPV4 fragmented packet “packet with > > > > > > length > > > > > > 1500 fragmented to three packets of 500” > > > > > > > > > > > > “”” > > > > > > > > > > > > p=Ether(src=get_if_hwaddr('ens10'), dst= > > > > > > '24:8A:07:88:26:6B')/IP()/TCP() > > > > > > > > > > > > p.add_payload('F'*(1500 - len(p))) > > > > > > > > > > > > frags=fragment(p,fragsize=500) > > > > > > > > > > > > for fragment in frags: > > > > > > > > > > > > sendp(fragment, iface='ens10') > > > > > > > > > > > > “”” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the testpmd forward the packets as it is, “ doesn’t do any > > > > > > merge” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tcpdump at the TG side, > > > > > > > > > > > > The sending fragmets using ens10: > > > > > > > > > > > > #tcpdump –I ens10 –vvven > > > > > > > > > > > > 15:45:29.083514 24:8a:07:88:26:5b > 24:8a:07:88:26:6b, > > > > > > ethertype > > > > > > IPv4 (0x0800), length 538: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1, offset 0, > > > > > > flags [+], proto Options (0), length 524) > > > > > > > > > > > > 127.0.0.1 > 127.0.0.1: ip-proto-0 504 > > > > > > > > > > > > 15:45:29.115266 24:8a:07:88:26:5b > 24:8a:07:88:26:6b, > > > > > > ethertype > > > > > > IPv4 (0x0800), length 538: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1, offset > > > > > > 504, flags [+], proto Options (0), length 524) > > > > > > > > > > > > 127.0.0.1 > 127.0.0.1: ip-proto-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > 15:45:29.147258 24:8a:07:88:26:5b > 24:8a:07:88:26:6b, > > > > > > ethertype > > > > > > IPv4 (0x0800), length 492: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1, offset > > > > > > 1008, flags [none], proto Options (0), length 478) > > > > > > > > > > > > 127.0.0.1 > 127.0.0.1: ip-proto-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #tcpdump -i ens9 –vvven /// here will be received the > > > > > > forwarded packets from > > > > > > testpmd: > > > > > > > > > > > > 15:45:29.083996 24:8a:07:88:26:5b > 24:8a:07:88:26:6b, > > > > > > ethertype > > > > > > IPv4 (0x0800), length 538: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1, offset 0, > > > > > > flags [+], proto Options (0), length 524) > > > > > > > > > > > > 127.0.0.1 > 127.0.0.1: ip-proto-0 504 > > > > > > > > > > > > 15:45:29.115425 24:8a:07:88:26:5b > 24:8a:07:88:26:6b, > > > > > > ethertype > > > > > > IPv4 (0x0800), length 538: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1, offset > > > > > > 504, flags [+], proto Options (0), length 524) > > > > > > > > > > > > 127.0.0.1 > 127.0.0.1: ip-proto-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > 15:45:29.147492 24:8a:07:88:26:5b > 24:8a:07:88:26:6b, > > > > > > ethertype > > > > > > IPv4 (0x0800), length 492: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1, offset > > > > > > 1008, flags [none], proto Options (0), length 478) > > > > > > > > > > > > 127.0.0.1 > 127.0.0.1: ip-proto-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I doing something wrong?! Or it is a bug. > > > > > > > > > > > > è As you see the tcpdump shows the offset of each fragment, > > > > > > and testpmd prints L4_FRAG, so the both are recognizing that > > > > > > this is a > > > > > fragmented packet. > > > > > > > > > > GRO library merges TSOed/GSOed packets, whose IP IDs and TCP > > > > sequences > > > > > are both consecutive. If input packets have same IP IDs, no > > > > > packets will be merged. > > > > > > > > > > BTW, you can use iperf to test GRO feature. > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > Jiayu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Wisam Jaddo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
