[ovs-dev] [PATCH v1] netdev-dpdk: Implement TCP/UDP TX cksum in ovs-dpdk side
Gao Zhenyu
sysugaozhenyu at gmail.com
Wed Aug 23 15:12:03 UTC 2017
Yes, maintaining only one implementation is resonable.
However making ovs-dpdk to support vhost tx-cksum first is doable as well.
We can have it in ovs, and replace it with new DPDK API once ovs update its
dpdk version which contains the tx-cksum implementation.
Thanks
Zhenyu Gao
2017-08-23 21:59 GMT+08:00 Loftus, Ciara <ciara.loftus at intel.com>:
> >
> > Hi Ciara
> >
> > You had a general concern below; can we conclude on that before going
> > further ?
> >
> > Thanks Darrell
> >
> > “
> > > On another note I have a general concern. I understand similar
> functionality
> > > is present in the DPDK vhost sample app. I wonder if it would be
> feasible
> > for
> > > this to be implemented in the DPDK vhost library and leveraged here,
> > rather
> > > than having two implementations in two separate code bases.
>
> This is something I'd like to see, although I wouldn't block on this patch
> waiting for it.
> Maybe we can have the initial implementation as it is (if it proves
> beneficial), then move to a common DPDK API if/when it becomes available.
>
> I've cc'ed DPDK users list hoping for some input. To summarise:
> From my understanding, the DPDK vhost sample application calculates TX
> checksum for packets received from vHost ports with invalid/0 checksums:
> http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/examples/vhost/main.c#n910
> The patch being discussed in this thread (also here:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/802070/) it seems does something very
> similar.
> Wondering on the feasibility of putting this functionality in a rte_vhost
> library call such that we don't have two separate implementations?
>
> Thanks,
> Ciara
>
> > >
> > > I have some other comments inline.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ciara
> > “
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Gao Zhenyu <sysugaozhenyu at gmail.com>
> > Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 6:38 AM
> > To: "Loftus, Ciara" <ciara.loftus at intel.com>
> > Cc: "blp at ovn.org" <blp at ovn.org>, "Chandran, Sugesh"
> > <sugesh.chandran at intel.com>, "ktraynor at redhat.com"
> > <ktraynor at redhat.com>, Darrell Ball <dball at vmware.com>,
> > "dev at openvswitch.org" <dev at openvswitch.org>
> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v1] netdev-dpdk: Implement TCP/UDP TX
> > cksum in ovs-dpdk side
> >
> > Hi Loftus,
> > I had submitted a new version, please see
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/802070/
> > It move the cksum to vhost receive side.
> > Thanks
> > Zhenyu Gao
> >
> > 2017-08-10 12:35 GMT+08:00 Gao Zhenyu <sysugaozhenyu at gmail.com>:
> > I see, for flows in phy-phy setup, they should not be calculate cksum.
> > I will revise my patch to do the cksum for vhost port only. I will send
> a new
> > patch next week.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Zhenyu Gao
> >
> > 2017-08-08 17:53 GMT+08:00 Loftus, Ciara <ciara.loftus at intel.com>:
> > >
> > > Hi Loftus,
> > >
> > > Thanks for testing and the comments!
> > > Can you show more details about your phy-vm-phy,phy-phy setup and
> > > testing steps? Then I can reproduce it to see if I can solve this pps
> problem.
> >
> > You're welcome. I forgot to mention my tests were with 64B packets.
> >
> > For phy-phy the setup is a single host with 2 dpdk physical ports and 1
> flow
> > rule port1 -> port2.
> > See figure 3 here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-
> > opnfv-04#section-4
> >
> > For the phy-vm-phy the setup is a single host with 2 dpdk physical ports
> and 2
> > vhostuser ports with flow rules:
> > Dpdk1 -> vhost 1 & vhost2 -> dpdk2
> > IP rules are set up in the VM to route packets from vhost1 to vhost 2.
> > See figure 4 in the link above.
> >
> > >
> > > BTW, how about throughput, did you saw improvment?
> >
> > By throughput if you mean 0% packet loss, I did not test this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ciara
> >
> > >
> > > I would like to implement vhost->vhost part.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Zhenyu Gao
> > >
> > > 2017-08-04 22:52 GMT+08:00 Loftus, Ciara <ciara.loftus at intel.com>:
> > > >
> > > > Currently, the dpdk-vhost side in ovs doesn't support tcp/udp tx
> cksum.
> > > > So L4 packets's cksum were calculated in VM side but performance is
> not
> > > > good.
> > > > Implementing tcp/udp tx cksum in ovs-dpdk side improves throughput
> > and
> > > > makes virtio-net frontend-driver support NETIF_F_SG as well
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zhenyu Gao <sysugaozhenyu at gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Here is some performance number:
> > > >
> > > > Setup:
> > > >
> > > > qperf client
> > > > +---------+
> > > > | VM |
> > > > +---------+
> > > > |
> > > > | qperf server
> > > > +--------------+ +------------+
> > > > | vswitch+dpdk | | bare-metal |
> > > > +--------------+ +------------+
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > pNic---------PhysicalSwitch----
> > > >
> > > > do cksum in ovs-dpdk: Applied this patch and execute 'ethtool -K
> eth0 tx
> > > on'
> > > > in VM side.
> > > > It offload cksum job to ovs-dpdk side.
> > > >
> > > > do cksum in VM: Applied this patch and execute 'ethtool -K eth0 tx
> off' in
> > > VM
> > > > side.
> > > > VM calculate cksum for tcp/udp packets.
> > > >
> > > > We can see huge improvment in TCP throughput if we leverage ovs-dpdk
> > > > cksum.
> > > Hi Zhenyu,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the patch. I tested some alternative use cases and
> > unfortunately I
> > > see a degradation for phy-phy and phy-vm-phy topologies.
> > > Here are my results:
> > >
> > > phy-vm-phy:
> > > without patch: 0.871Mpps
> > > with patch (offload=on): 0.877Mpps
> > > with patch (offload=off): 0.891Mpps
> > >
> > > phy-phy:
> > > without patch: 13.581Mpps
> > > with patch: 13.055Mpps
> > >
> > > The half a million pps drop for the second test case is concerning to
> me but
> > > not surprising since we're adding extra complexity to
> netdev_dpdk_send()
> > > Could this be avoided? Would it make sense to put this functionality
> > > somewhere else eg. vhost receive?
> > >
> > > On another note I have a general concern. I understand similar
> functionality
> > > is present in the DPDK vhost sample app. I wonder if it would be
> feasible
> > for
> > > this to be implemented in the DPDK vhost library and leveraged here,
> > rather
> > > than having two implementations in two separate code bases.
> > >
> > > I have some other comments inline.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ciara
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [root at localhost ~]# qperf -t 10 -oo msg_size:1:64K:*2 host-qperf-
> > server01
> > > > tcp_bw tcp_lat udp_bw udp_lat
> > > > do cksum in ovs-dpdk do cksum in VM without
> this patch
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 2.05 MB/sec bw = 1.92 MB/sec bw = 1.95
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 3.9 MB/sec bw = 3.99 MB/sec bw = 3.98
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 8.09 MB/sec bw = 7.82 MB/sec bw = 8.19
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 14.9 MB/sec bw = 14.8 MB/sec bw = 15.7
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 27.7 MB/sec bw = 28 MB/sec bw = 29.7
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 51.2 MB/sec bw = 50.9 MB/sec bw = 54.9
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 86.7 MB/sec bw = 86.8 MB/sec bw = 95.1
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 149 MB/sec bw = 160 MB/sec bw = 149
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 211 MB/sec bw = 205 MB/sec bw = 216
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 271 MB/sec bw = 254 MB/sec bw = 275
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 326 MB/sec bw = 303 MB/sec bw = 321
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 407 MB/sec bw = 359 MB/sec bw = 361
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 816 MB/sec bw = 512 MB/sec bw = 419
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 840 MB/sec bw = 756 MB/sec bw = 457
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 1.07 GB/sec bw = 880 MB/sec bw = 480
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 1.17 GB/sec bw = 1.01 GB/sec bw = 488
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_bw:
> > > > bw = 1.17 GB/sec bw = 1.11 GB/sec bw = 483
> MB/sec
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 29 us latency = 29.2 us latency =
> 29.6 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 28.9 us latency = 29.3 us latency =
> 29.5 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 29 us latency = 29.3 us latency =
> 29.6 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 29 us latency = 29.4 us latency =
> 29.5 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 29 us latency = 29.2 us latency =
> 29.6 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 29.1 us latency = 29.3 us latency =
> 29.7 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 29.4 us latency = 29.6 us latency =
> 30 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 29.8 us latency = 30.1 us latency =
> 30.2 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 30.9 us latency = 30.9 us latency =
> 31 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 46.9 us latency = 46.2 us latency =
> 32.2 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 51.5 us latency = 52.6 us latency =
> 34.5 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 43.9 us latency = 43.8 us latency =
> 43.6 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 47.6 us latency = 48 us latency =
> 48.1 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 77.7 us latency = 78.8 us latency =
> 78.8 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 82.8 us latency = 82.3 us latency =
> 116 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 94.8 us latency = 94.2 us latency =
> 134 us
> > > > tcp_lat:
> > > > latency = 167 us latency = 197 us latency =
> 172 us
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 418 KB/sec send_bw = 413 KB/sec send_bw =
> 403
> > > KB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 410 KB/sec recv_bw = 412 KB/sec recv_bw =
> 400
> > KB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 831 KB/sec send_bw = 825 KB/sec send_bw =
> 810
> > > KB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 828 KB/sec recv_bw = 816 KB/sec recv_bw =
> 807
> > KB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 1.67 MB/sec send_bw = 1.65 MB/sec send_bw =
> 1.63
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 1.64 MB/sec recv_bw = 1.62 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 1.63
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 3.36 MB/sec send_bw = 3.29 MB/sec send_bw =
> 3.26
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 3.29 MB/sec recv_bw = 3.25 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 2.82
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 6.72 MB/sec send_bw = 6.61 MB/sec send_bw =
> 6.45
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 6.54 MB/sec recv_bw = 6.59 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 6.45
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 13.4 MB/sec send_bw = 13.2 MB/sec send_bw =
> 13
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 13.1 MB/sec recv_bw = 13.1 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 13
> > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 26.8 MB/sec send_bw = 26.4 MB/sec send_bw =
> 25.9
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 26.4 MB/sec recv_bw = 26.2 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 25.7
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 53.4 MB/sec send_bw = 52.5 MB/sec send_bw =
> 52
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 48.4 MB/sec recv_bw = 51.8 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 51.2
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 106 MB/sec send_bw = 104 MB/sec send_bw =
> 103
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 98.9 MB/sec recv_bw = 93.2 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 100
> > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 213 MB/sec send_bw = 206 MB/sec send_bw =
> 205
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 197 MB/sec recv_bw = 196 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 202
> > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 417 MB/sec send_bw = 405 MB/sec send_bw =
> 401
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 400 MB/sec recv_bw = 333 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 358
> > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 556 MB/sec send_bw = 552 MB/sec send_bw =
> 557
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 361 MB/sec recv_bw = 365 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 362
> > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 865 MB/sec send_bw = 866 MB/sec send_bw =
> 863
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 564 MB/sec recv_bw = 573 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 584
> > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 1.05 GB/sec send_bw = 1.09 GB/sec send_bw =
> 1.08
> > > > GB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 789 MB/sec recv_bw = 732 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 793
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 1.18 GB/sec send_bw = 1.23 GB/sec send_bw =
> 1.19
> > > > GB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 658 MB/sec recv_bw = 788 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 673
> > > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 1.3 GB/sec send_bw = 1.3 GB/sec send_bw =
> 1.3
> > > GB/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 659 MB/sec recv_bw = 763 MB/sec recv_bw =
> 762
> > > MB/sec
> > > > udp_bw:
> > > > send_bw = 0 bytes/sec send_bw = 0 bytes/sec send_bw = 0
> > > > bytes/sec
> > > > recv_bw = 0 bytes/sec recv_bw = 0 bytes/sec recv_bw = 0
> > bytes/sec
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.5 us latency =
> 26.4 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.5 us latency =
> 26.3 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.7 us latency =
> 26.3 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.6 us latency =
> 26.3 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.7 us latency =
> 26.7 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 27 us latency = 26.7 us latency =
> 26.6 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 27 us latency = 26.9 us latency =
> 26.7 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 27.6 us latency = 27.4 us latency =
> 27.3 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 28.1 us latency = 28 us latency =
> 28 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 29.4 us latency = 29.2 us latency =
> 29.2 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 31 us latency = 31 us latency =
> 30.8 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 41.4 us latency = 41.4 us latency =
> 41.3 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 41.6 us latency = 41.5 us latency =
> 41.5 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 64.9 us latency = 65 us latency =
> 65 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 72.3 us latency = 72 us latency =
> 72 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 121 us latency = 122 us latency =
> 122 us
> > > > udp_lat:
> > > > latency = 0 ns latency = 0 ns latency =
> 0 ns
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > lib/netdev-dpdk.c | 84
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c
> > > > index ea17b97..d27d615 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c
> > > > +++ b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c
> > > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> > > > #include <rte_errno.h>
> > > > #include <rte_eth_ring.h>
> > > > #include <rte_ethdev.h>
> > > > +#include <rte_ip.h>
> > > > #include <rte_malloc.h>
> > > > #include <rte_mbuf.h>
> > > > #include <rte_meter.h>
> > > > @@ -1392,6 +1393,84 @@ netdev_dpdk_rxq_dealloc(struct netdev_rxq
> > > > *rxq)
> > > > rte_free(rx);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static inline void
> > > > +netdev_refill_l4_cksum(const char *data, struct dp_packet *pkt,
> > > > + uint8_t l4_proto, bool is_ipv4)
> > > > +{
> > > > + void *l3hdr = (void *)(data + pkt->l3_ofs);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (l4_proto == IPPROTO_TCP) {
> > > > + struct tcp_header *tcp_hdr = (struct tcp_header *)(data +
> pkt-
> > > >l4_ofs);
> > > > +
> > > > + pkt->mbuf.l2_len = pkt->l3_ofs;
> > > > + pkt->mbuf.l3_len = pkt->l4_ofs - pkt->l3_ofs;
> > > > + tcp_hdr->tcp_csum = 0;
> > > > + if (is_ipv4) {
> > > > + tcp_hdr->tcp_csum = rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(l3hdr,
> tcp_hdr);
> > > > + pkt->mbuf.ol_flags ^= PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM | PKT_TX_IPV4;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + pkt->mbuf.ol_flags ^= PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM | PKT_TX_IPV6;
> > > > + tcp_hdr->tcp_csum = rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum(l3hdr,
> tcp_hdr);
> > > > + }
> > > > + } else if (l4_proto == IPPROTO_UDP) {
> > > > + struct udp_header *udp_hdr = (struct udp_header *)(data +
> pkt-
> > > > >l4_ofs);
> > > > + /* do not recalculate udp cksum if it was 0 */
> > > > + if (udp_hdr->udp_csum != 0) {
> > > > + pkt->mbuf.l2_len = pkt->l3_ofs;
> > > > + pkt->mbuf.l3_len = pkt->l4_ofs - pkt->l3_ofs;
> > > > + udp_hdr->udp_csum = 0;
> > > > + if (is_ipv4) {
> > > > + /*do not calculate udp cksum if it was a fragment
> IP*/
> > > > + if (IP_IS_FRAGMENT(((struct ipv4_hdr *)l3hdr)->
> > > > + fragment_offset)) {
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + pkt->mbuf.ol_flags ^= PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM |
> PKT_TX_IPV4;
> > > > + udp_hdr->udp_csum = rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(l3hdr,
> > udp_hdr);
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + pkt->mbuf.ol_flags ^= PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM |
> PKT_TX_IPV6;
> > > > + udp_hdr->udp_csum = rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum(l3hdr,
> > udp_hdr);
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline void
> > > > +netdev_prepare_tx_csum(struct dp_packet **pkts, int pkt_cnt)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < pkt_cnt; i++) {
> > > > + ovs_be16 dl_type;
> > > > + struct dp_packet *pkt = (struct dp_packet *)pkts[i];
> > > > + const char *data = dp_packet_data(pkt);
> > > > + void *l3hdr = (char *)(data + pkt->l3_ofs);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (pkt->l4_ofs == UINT16_MAX || pkt->l3_ofs == UINT16_MAX)
> {
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + }
> > > > + /* This take a assumption that it should be a vhost packet
> if this
> > > > + * packet was allocated by DPDK pool and try sending to
> pNic. */
> > > > + if (pkt->source == DPBUF_DPDK &&
> > > > + !(pkt->mbuf.ol_flags & PKT_TX_L4_MASK)) {
> > > > + // DPDK vhost-user tags PKT_TX_L4_MASK if a L4 packet
> need
> > > cksum
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + }
> > > The comments here could be formatted better. Suggest combining both
> > into
> > > one comment before the 'if'.
> > > Not sure the term 'pNIC' is widely used. Suggest using 'dpdk port'.
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + dl_type = *(ovs_be16 *)(data + pkt->l3_ofs - 2);
> > > > + if (dl_type == htons(ETH_TYPE_IP)) {
> > > > + netdev_refill_l4_cksum(data, pkt,
> > > > + ((struct ipv4_hdr
> *)l3hdr)->next_proto_id,
> > > > + true);
> > > > + } else if (dl_type == htons(ETH_TYPE_IPV6)) {
> > > > + netdev_refill_l4_cksum(data, pkt,
> > > > + ((struct ipv6_hdr
> *)l3hdr)->proto,
> > > > + false);
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > /* Tries to transmit 'pkts' to txq 'qid' of device 'dev'. Takes
> ownership of
> > > > * 'pkts', even in case of failure.
> > > > *
> > > > @@ -1833,6 +1912,8 @@ netdev_dpdk_send__(struct netdev_dpdk
> > *dev,
> > > > int qid,
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + netdev_prepare_tx_csum(batch->packets, batch->count);
> > >
> > > Putting this here assumes we only prepare the csum for vhost -> dpdk or
> > > vhost -> ring cases. What about vhost -> vhost?
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > if (OVS_UNLIKELY(concurrent_txq)) {
> > > > qid = qid % dev->up.n_txq;
> > > > rte_spinlock_lock(&dev->tx_q[qid].tx_lock);
> > > > @@ -2741,8 +2822,7 @@ netdev_dpdk_vhost_class_init(void)
> > > > if (ovsthread_once_start(&once)) {
> > > > rte_vhost_driver_callback_register(&virtio_net_device_ops);
> > > > rte_vhost_feature_disable(1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4
> > > > - | 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6
> > > > - | 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_CSUM);
> > > > + | 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6);
> > > > ovs_thread_create("vhost_thread", start_vhost_loop, NULL);
> > > >
> > > > ovsthread_once_done(&once);
> > > > --
> > > > 1.8.3.1
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > dev mailing list
> > > > dev at openvswitch.org
> > > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
> >
>
>
More information about the dev
mailing list