[ovs-dev] [PATCH v1] netdev-dpdk: Implement TCP/UDP TX cksum in ovs-dpdk side

Gao Zhenyu sysugaozhenyu at gmail.com
Thu Aug 24 15:02:15 UTC 2017


Thanks for the comments!

Yes, the best way is calculating cksum if destination need cksum.
But in current ovs-dpdk process,  it is hard to tell whether this whole
batch packets need cksum or not when delivering to destination.
If we check(check PKT_TX_L4_MASK and has l4 header) packets one by one will
introduce regression in some usecases. (In the previous email, Ciara give a
testing on my first patch and see about 4% regression in pure forwarding
packet testing )

About offlording to physical nic, I had make some testing on it and it
doesn't show significant improvment but disable dpdk tx vectorization.(may
not good for small packets) I prefer to implement software cksum first then
count hardware offloading later.

The VM I use for testing is centos7,kernel version
is 3.10.0-514.16.1.el7.x86_64. Supporting cksum has a additional benefit,
the vhost-net can enable NETIF_F_SG (enable scatter-gather feature).

2017-08-24 17:07 GMT+08:00 O Mahony, Billy <billy.o.mahony at intel.com>:

> Hi Gao,
>
> Thanks for working on this. Lack of checksum offload is big difference
> between ovs and ovs-dpdk when using linux stack in the guest.
>
> The thing that struck me was that rather than immediately calculating the
> L4 checksum in the host on vhost rx that the calculation should be delayed
> until it's known to be absolutely required to be done on the host. If the
> packet is for another VM a checksum is not required as the bits are not
> going over a physical medium. And if the packets is destined for a NIC then
> the checksum can be offloaded if the NIC supports it.
>
> I'm not sure why doing the L4 sum in the guest should give a performance
> gain. The processing still has to be done. Maybe the guest code was
> compiled for an older architecture and is not using as efficient a set of
> instructions?
>
> In any case the best advantage of having dpdk virtio device  support
> offload is if it can further offload to a NIC or avoid cksum entirely if
> the packet is destined for a local VM.
>
> Thanks,
> Billy.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ovs-dev-bounces at openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-dev-
> > bounces at openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Gao Zhenyu
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 4:12 PM
> > To: Loftus, Ciara <ciara.loftus at intel.com>
> > Cc: dev at openvswitch.org; users at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v1] netdev-dpdk: Implement TCP/UDP TX
> > cksum in ovs-dpdk side
> >
> > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev mailing list
> > dev at openvswitch.org
> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>


More information about the dev mailing list