From: Ananyev, Konstantin

quoted

Hi Konstantin

From: Ananyev, Konstantin

quoted

Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 1:18 PM
To: Matan Azrad <redacted>; dev@dpdk.org
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <redacted>; Yigit, Ferruh
[off-list ref]; Andrew Rybchenko
[off-list ref]; Olivier Matz [off-list ref]
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] doc: announce new mbuf field for LRO

Hi Matan,

quoted

quoted

quoted

The API breakage is because the ``tso_segsz`` field was
documented for LRO.

The ``tso_segsz`` field in mbuf indicates the size of each
segment in the LRO packet in Rx path and should be provided by
the LRO packet port.

While the generic LRO packet may aggregate different segments
sizes in one packet, it is impossible to expose this
information for each segment by one field and it doesn't make
sense to expose all the segments sizes in the mbuf.

A new field may be added as union with the above field to
expose the number of segments aggregated in the LRO packet.

Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <redacted>
---
 doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst

b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
index c0cd9bc..e826b69 100644

--- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst

@@ -45,6 +45,10 @@ Deprecation Notices
   - ``eal_parse_pci_DomBDF`` replaced by ``rte_pci_addr_parse``
   - ``rte_eal_compare_pci_addr`` replaced by

``rte_pci_addr_cmp``

+* mbuf: Remove ``tso_segsz`` mbuf field providing for LRO

support.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+Use union
+  block for the field memory to be shared with a new field
+``lro_segs_n``
+  indicates the number of segments aggregated in the LRO packet.
+

Wonder how the upper layer will use that information (except for

stats)?

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Could you guys provide any examples?

1. Stats, allow to calc accurate PPS.
2. Supply accurate information unlike the seg size which cannot be

accurate.

quoted

2. Let the user all the information (segs num allow an average seg
size calculation)

So just for stats, right?

Stats it is one option.

The user configured LRO, means he wants X > 1 packets to be aggregated

by the port.

quoted

Don't you think X is interesting for the user?

For example, maybe there is Y for the next calculation:

If average(X) < Y:
	Stop LRO - not very good for performance to aggregate small number

of packets - stop LRO.

quoted

Might be, but I think user can use other metrics (let say average aggregated
packet size) for that purpose.

Yes, but I think it is better to supply the segs number which is an accurate number instead of average size of segment.
Then, user can decide any calculation he prefers.

quoted

quoted

If so,  wouldn't it be more plausible to extend PMD itself to
provide some extra statistics?
Just a thought.

Yes, may be interesting but it can be redundant work when the user don't

need it.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Also what PMD should do if HW does supports LRO, but doesn't to
information?

If the PMD knows all the segments size he can calculate it, no?
0 means PMD doesn't support it.

I mean HW/PMD might support LRO, but doesn't provide information
about number of coalesced segments.
What PMD should do in that case?

As I said, to set this field with 0 and set the PKT_RX_LRO flag in ol_flags.
0 in this case means support LRO but cannot supply the segments num.

Ok..., but then what for then to set PKT_RX_LRO at all?
From PMD perspective it would be easier not to set that flag at all and not to
touch tso_segsz.

The user should know that LRO is working. LRO flag should be set in any case.

quoted

Do you familiar with PMDs that supports LRO but cannot provide the

segments num?

quoted

If so, what do these PMDs can provide instead?

Yes, ixgbe PMD.
It does support TCP_LRO offload, and when enabled, does coalesce the
packets, but doesn't set PKT_RX_LRO and doesn't touch tso_segsz.

I think it should be changed to set the flag.

quoted

quoted

Still  set DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO as enabled RX offload, but don't
set PKT_RX_LRO flag in the RX-ed mbuf, even if it does contain
coalesced packets?

No, read above.

quoted

As I understand that what happens now.
It is probably ok by me (as means no changes in ixgbe PMD)...
But wouldn't that mean no defined way for the user to determine will
HW/PMD provide that information or not?

Will compare to 0, see above.

I mean how the user will determine in advance would given PMD/HW
provide that info in tso_segsz or not?
Wait for the first LRO packet? Something else?

Or wait to for the first LRO packet, or we can add a new ethdev capability for it.

What do you think?

quoted

quoted

Konstantin

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

 * dpaa2: removal of ``rte_dpaa2_memsegs`` structure which has
been

replaced

quoted

   by a pa-va search library. This structure was earlier being
used for

holding

quoted

quoted

quoted

   memory segments used by dpaa2 driver for faster pa->va

translation.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

This
--
1.8.3.1