diff mbox

[dpdk-dev,v5,2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM

Message ID 1417532767-1309-3-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Jijiang Liu Dec. 2, 2014, 3:06 p.m. UTC
Replace PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM with PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT in order to indicate a packet is an UDP tunneling packet, and introduce 3 TX offload flags for outer IP TX checksum, which are PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 and PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 respectively;Rework csum forward engine and i40e PMD due to these changes.

Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
---
 app/test-pmd/csumonly.c         |    9 +++++++--
 lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c      |    7 ++++++-
 lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h      |   11 ++++++++++-
 lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c |    6 +++---
 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

Comments

Olivier Matz Dec. 3, 2014, 11:41 a.m. UTC | #1
Hi Jijiang,

On 12/02/2014 04:06 PM, Jijiang Liu wrote:
> Replace PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM with PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT in order to indicate a packet is an UDP tunneling packet, and introduce 3 TX offload flags for outer IP TX checksum, which are PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 and PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 respectively;Rework csum forward engine and i40e PMD due to these changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
> ---
>   app/test-pmd/csumonly.c         |    9 +++++++--
>   lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c      |    7 ++++++-
>   lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h      |   11 ++++++++++-
>   lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c |    6 +++---
>   4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
> index d8c080a..9094967 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
> @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ process_outer_cksums(void *outer_l3_hdr, uint16_t outer_ethertype,
>   	uint64_t ol_flags = 0;
>
>   	if (testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_CKSUM)
> -		ol_flags |= PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM;
> +		ol_flags |= PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT;
>
>   	if (outer_ethertype == _htons(ETHER_TYPE_IPv4)) {
>   		ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum = 0;
> @@ -470,7 +470,12 @@ pkt_burst_checksum_forward(struct fwd_stream *fs)
>   				{ PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
>   				{ PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
>   				{ PKT_TX_SCTP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
> -				{ PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM, PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM },
> +				{ PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT, PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT },
> +				{ PKT_TX_IPV4, PKT_TX_IPV4 },
> +				{ PKT_TX_IPV6, PKT_TX_IPV6 },
> +				{ PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM },
> +				{ PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 },
> +				{ PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 },
>   				{ PKT_TX_TCP_SEG, PKT_TX_TCP_SEG },

I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
appropriate. I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may
have misunderstood:

http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html


Olivier
Ananyev, Konstantin Dec. 3, 2014, 12:59 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi Oliver,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 11:41 AM
> To: Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> Hi Jijiang,
> 
> On 12/02/2014 04:06 PM, Jijiang Liu wrote:
> > Replace PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM with PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT in order to indicate a packet is an UDP tunneling packet, and
> introduce 3 TX offload flags for outer IP TX checksum, which are PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 and
> PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 respectively;Rework csum forward engine and i40e PMD due to these changes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   app/test-pmd/csumonly.c         |    9 +++++++--
> >   lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c      |    7 ++++++-
> >   lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h      |   11 ++++++++++-
> >   lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c |    6 +++---
> >   4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
> > index d8c080a..9094967 100644
> > --- a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
> > +++ b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
> > @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ process_outer_cksums(void *outer_l3_hdr, uint16_t outer_ethertype,
> >   	uint64_t ol_flags = 0;
> >
> >   	if (testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_CKSUM)
> > -		ol_flags |= PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM;
> > +		ol_flags |= PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT;
> >
> >   	if (outer_ethertype == _htons(ETHER_TYPE_IPv4)) {
> >   		ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum = 0;
> > @@ -470,7 +470,12 @@ pkt_burst_checksum_forward(struct fwd_stream *fs)
> >   				{ PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
> >   				{ PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
> >   				{ PKT_TX_SCTP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
> > -				{ PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM, PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM },
> > +				{ PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT, PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT },
> > +				{ PKT_TX_IPV4, PKT_TX_IPV4 },
> > +				{ PKT_TX_IPV6, PKT_TX_IPV6 },
> > +				{ PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM },
> > +				{ PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 },
> > +				{ PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 },
> >   				{ PKT_TX_TCP_SEG, PKT_TX_TCP_SEG },
> 
> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
> appropriate.

Sorry, didn't get you here.
Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?

> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may
> have misunderstood:
> 
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html

In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make  PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
Something like:
#define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
#define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
#define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)

"Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:

switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
    case TX_IPV4:
       ...
       break;
    case TX_IPV6:
       ...
       break;
    case TX_IP_CKSUM:
       ...
       break;
}"

As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.

> 
> 
> Olivier
Olivier Matz Dec. 3, 2014, 2:41 p.m. UTC | #3
Hi Konstantin,

On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
>> appropriate.
>
> Sorry, didn't get you here.
> Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?

Yes

>> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may
>> have misunderstood:
>>
>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html
>
> In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make  PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
> Something like:
> #define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
> #define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
> #define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)
>
> "Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
>
> switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
>      case TX_IPV4:
>         ...
>         break;
>      case TX_IPV6:
>         ...
>         break;
>      case TX_IP_CKSUM:
>         ...
>         break;
> }"
>
> As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
> I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.

ok, so we are back between:

1/ (Jijiang's patch)
PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */

with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive

and

2/
PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */

with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4


Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an
opinion?

Regards,
Olivier
Jijiang Liu Dec. 4, 2014, 2:08 a.m. UTC | #4
Hi Olivier,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> Hi Konstantin,
> 
> On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
> >> appropriate.
> >
> > Sorry, didn't get you here.
> > Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and
> PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?
> 
> Yes
> 
> >> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may have
> >> misunderstood:
> >>
> >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html
> >
> > In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make  PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM,
> PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
> > Something like:
> > #define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
> > #define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
> > #define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)
> >
> > "Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> > Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
> >
> > switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
> >      case TX_IPV4:
> >         ...
> >         break;
> >      case TX_IPV6:
> >         ...
> >         break;
> >      case TX_IP_CKSUM:
> >         ...
> >         break;
> > }"
> >
> > As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
> > I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.
> 
> ok, so we are back between:
> 
> 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> 
> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> 
> and
> 
> 2/
> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> 
> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> 
> 
> Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an opinion?

Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP version/type,
 
1. For IPv6 
IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4,  so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6 packet, here we don't talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless. Right?

PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */         ------ IP type: v6;  HW checksum: meaningless

2. For IPv4,
My patch:

PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */--------------------------IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */ ----------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: No

You want:
PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */-------------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4*/ ------------------------  IP type: v4; HW checksum: yes or no?
                                                                                                       driver/HW don't know, just know this is packet with IPv4 header. 
                                                                                                       HW checksum: meaningless??

> Regards,
> Olivier
Helin Zhang Dec. 4, 2014, 6:52 a.m. UTC | #5
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> Hi Konstantin,
> 
> On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
> >> appropriate.
> >
> > Sorry, didn't get you here.
> > Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and
> PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?
> 
> Yes
> 
> >> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may have
> >> misunderstood:
> >>
> >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html
> >
> > In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make  PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM,
> PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
> > Something like:
> > #define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
> > #define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
> > #define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)
> >
> > "Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> > Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
> >
> > switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
> >      case TX_IPV4:
> >         ...
> >         break;
> >      case TX_IPV6:
> >         ...
> >         break;
> >      case TX_IP_CKSUM:
> >         ...
> >         break;
> > }"
> >
> > As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
> > I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.
> 
> ok, so we are back between:
> 
> 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> 
> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> 
> and
> 
> 2/
> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the
same bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware
checksum offload is needed or not.
It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess
other features should not be contained in it, according to its name.

So here I got the option 3:
PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM  /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */

> 
> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> 
> 
> Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an opinion?
> 
> Regards,
> Olivier

Regards,
Helin
Jijiang Liu Dec. 4, 2014, 7:52 a.m. UTC | #6
Hi Helin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Helin
> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 2:52 PM
> To: Olivier MATZ; Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and
> > repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> >
> > Hi Konstantin,
> >
> > On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > >> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
> > >> appropriate.
> > >
> > > Sorry, didn't get you here.
> > > Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and
> > PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > >> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may have
> > >> misunderstood:
> > >>
> > >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html
> > >
> > > In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make
> > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM,
> > PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
> > > Something like:
> > > #define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
> > > #define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
> > > #define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)
> > >
> > > "Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> > > Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
> > >
> > > switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
> > >      case TX_IPV4:
> > >         ...
> > >         break;
> > >      case TX_IPV6:
> > >         ...
> > >         break;
> > >      case TX_IP_CKSUM:
> > >         ...
> > >         break;
> > > }"
> > >
> > > As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
> > > I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.
> >
> > ok, so we are back between:
> >
> > 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> >
> > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2/
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the same bit of
> 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware checksum offload is
> needed or not.
> It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
> 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess other
> features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
> 
> So here I got the option 3:
> PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM  /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */

In TX side,  if just tell driver/HW this is a IPV4 packet , and don't tell  driver/HW whether TX checksum  or other offload  is required or not , the flag is senseless,  and hardware will not do any offload.

The flag is not used in igb/ixgbe codes, which is just used in i40e codes, and set this bit(IPv4 packet with no IP checksum offload) in i40e driver.
...
	} else if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {
		*td_cmd |= I40E_TX_DESC_CMD_IIPT_IPV4;
...
		

> >
> > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> >
> >
> > Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an opinion?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Olivier
> 
> Regards,
> Helin
Ananyev, Konstantin Dec. 4, 2014, 10:19 a.m. UTC | #7
Hi Helin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Helin
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 6:52 AM
> To: Olivier MATZ; Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> > PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> >
> > Hi Konstantin,
> >
> > On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > >> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
> > >> appropriate.
> > >
> > > Sorry, didn't get you here.
> > > Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and
> > PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > >> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may have
> > >> misunderstood:
> > >>
> > >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html
> > >
> > > In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make  PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM,
> > PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
> > > Something like:
> > > #define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
> > > #define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
> > > #define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)
> > >
> > > "Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> > > Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
> > >
> > > switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
> > >      case TX_IPV4:
> > >         ...
> > >         break;
> > >      case TX_IPV6:
> > >         ...
> > >         break;
> > >      case TX_IP_CKSUM:
> > >         ...
> > >         break;
> > > }"
> > >
> > > As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
> > > I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.
> >
> > ok, so we are back between:
> >
> > 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> >
> > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2/
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the
> same bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware
> checksum offload is needed or not.

Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  and we are going to remove it.

> It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.

No one even planned it.

> 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess
> other features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
> 
> So here I got the option 3:
> PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM  /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */

Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's patch?
Except that you renamed PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM?   

Konstantin

> 
> >
> > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> >
> >
> > Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an opinion?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Olivier
> 
> Regards,
> Helin
Ananyev, Konstantin Dec. 4, 2014, 10:23 a.m. UTC | #8
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Jijiang
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 2:08 AM
> To: Olivier MATZ
> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> Hi Olivier,
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> > PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> >
> > Hi Konstantin,
> >
> > On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > >> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
> > >> appropriate.
> > >
> > > Sorry, didn't get you here.
> > > Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and
> > PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > >> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may have
> > >> misunderstood:
> > >>
> > >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html
> > >
> > > In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make  PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM,
> > PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
> > > Something like:
> > > #define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
> > > #define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
> > > #define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)
> > >
> > > "Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> > > Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
> > >
> > > switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
> > >      case TX_IPV4:
> > >         ...
> > >         break;
> > >      case TX_IPV6:
> > >         ...
> > >         break;
> > >      case TX_IP_CKSUM:
> > >         ...
> > >         break;
> > > }"
> > >
> > > As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
> > > I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.
> >
> > ok, so we are back between:
> >
> > 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> >
> > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2/
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> >
> > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> >
> >
> > Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an opinion?
> 
> Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP version/type,
> 
> 1. For IPv6
> IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4,  so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6 packet,
> here we don't talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless. Right?
> 
> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */         ------ IP type: v6;  HW checksum: meaningless
> 
> 2. For IPv4,
> My patch:
> 
> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */--------------------------IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */ ----------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: No
> 
> You want:
> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */-------------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4*/ ------------------------  IP type: v4; HW checksum: yes or no?
>                                                                                                        driver/HW don't know, just know this is packet with IPv4 header.
>                                                                                                        HW checksum: meaningless??

Yep, that's why I also don't like that suggestion: PKT_TX_IPV4 itself doesn't contain all information.
PMD will have to check PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  anyway.
Konstantin

> 
> > Regards,
> > Olivier
Thomas Monjalon Dec. 4, 2014, 10:45 a.m. UTC | #9
Hi,

2014-12-04 10:23, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> From: Liu, Jijiang
> > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > > On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > >> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
> > > >> appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, didn't get you here.
> > > > Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and
> > > > PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > >> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may have
> > > >> misunderstood:
> > > >>
> > > >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html
> > > >
> > > > In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make  PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM,
> > > PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
> > > > Something like:
> > > > #define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
> > > > #define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
> > > > #define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)
> > > >
> > > > "Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> > > > Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
> > > >
> > > > switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
> > > >      case TX_IPV4:
> > > >         ...
> > > >         break;
> > > >      case TX_IPV6:
> > > >         ...
> > > >         break;
> > > >      case TX_IP_CKSUM:
> > > >         ...
> > > >         break;
> > > > }"
> > > >
> > > > As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
> > > > I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.
> > >
> > > ok, so we are back between:
> > >
> > > 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> > > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> > >
> > > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > 2/
> > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> > > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> > >
> > > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> > >
> > >
> > > Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an opinion?
> > 
> > Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP version/type,
> > 
> > 1. For IPv6
> > IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4,  so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6 packet,
> > here we don't talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless. Right?
> > 
> > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */         ------ IP type: v6;  HW checksum: meaningless
> > 
> > 2. For IPv4,
> > My patch:
> > 
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */--------------------------IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */ ----------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: No
> > 
> > You want:
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */-------------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4*/ ------------------------  IP type: v4; HW checksum: yes or no?
> >                                                                                                        driver/HW don't know, just know this is packet with IPv4 header.
> >                                                                                                        HW checksum: meaningless??
> 
> Yep, that's why I also don't like that suggestion: PKT_TX_IPV4 itself doesn't contain all information.
> PMD will have to check PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  anyway.

I prefer solution 2 because a flag should bring only 1 information.
It's simply saner and could fit to more situations in the future.
Ananyev, Konstantin Dec. 4, 2014, 11:03 a.m. UTC | #10
Hi Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 10:45 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Olivier MATZ
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Liu, Jijiang
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 2014-12-04 10:23, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > From: Liu, Jijiang
> > > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > > > On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > > >> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is not
> > > > >> appropriate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, didn't get you here.
> > > > > Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and
> > > > > PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?
> > > >
> > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > >> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may have
> > > > >> misunderstood:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html
> > > > >
> > > > > In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make  PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM,
> > > > PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
> > > > > Something like:
> > > > > #define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
> > > > > #define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
> > > > > #define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> > > > > Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
> > > > >
> > > > > switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
> > > > >      case TX_IPV4:
> > > > >         ...
> > > > >         break;
> > > > >      case TX_IPV6:
> > > > >         ...
> > > > >         break;
> > > > >      case TX_IP_CKSUM:
> > > > >         ...
> > > > >         break;
> > > > > }"
> > > > >
> > > > > As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
> > > > > I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.
> > > >
> > > > ok, so we are back between:
> > > >
> > > > 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> > > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> > > > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> > > >
> > > > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > 2/
> > > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> > > > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> > > >
> > > > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an opinion?
> > >
> > > Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP version/type,
> > >
> > > 1. For IPv6
> > > IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4,  so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6
> packet,
> > > here we don't talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless. Right?
> > >
> > > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */         ------ IP type: v6;  HW checksum: meaningless
> > >
> > > 2. For IPv4,
> > > My patch:
> > >
> > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */--------------------------IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */ ----------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: No
> > >
> > > You want:
> > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */-------------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4*/ ------------------------  IP type: v4; HW checksum: yes or no?
> > >                                                                                                        driver/HW don't know, just know this is packet with IPv4 header.
> > >                                                                                                        HW checksum: meaningless??
> >
> > Yep, that's why I also don't like that suggestion: PKT_TX_IPV4 itself doesn't contain all information.
> > PMD will have to check PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  anyway.
> 
> I prefer solution 2 because a flag should bring only 1 information.

Why is that? For example in mbuf we already have a flag that brings 2 things:
PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */

If it would be possible to compress 10 meanings into 1 bit, I would happily do that.
Unfortunately, it is rarely possible :)

> It's simply saner and could fit to more situations in the future.

Could you give an example of such situation?
I personally couldn't come up with the case where #2 would have any real advantage. 
Konstantin

> 
> --
> Thomas
Olivier Matz Dec. 4, 2014, 1:47 p.m. UTC | #11
Hi,

On 12/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>> 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
>>>
>>> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> 2/
>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
>> There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the
>> same bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware
>> checksum offload is needed or not.
>
> Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  and we are going to remove it.
>
>> It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
>
> No one even planned it.
>
>> 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess
>> other features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
>>
>> So here I got the option 3:
>> PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM  /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
>
> Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's patch?
> Except that you renamed PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM?

I think it's more like solution 2 with a renaming. And it is more
coherent to always have "IPV4" on all flag names.

Regards,
Olivier
Olivier Matz Dec. 4, 2014, 1:51 p.m. UTC | #12
Hi,

On 12/04/2014 12:03 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>>>> 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
>>>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
>>>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
>>>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
>>>>>
>>>>> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> 2/
>>>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
>>>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
>>>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
>>>>>
>>>>> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an opinion?
>>>>
>>>> Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP version/type,
>>>>
>>>> 1. For IPv6
>>>> IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4,  so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6
>> packet,
>>>> here we don't talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless. Right?
>>>>
>>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */         ------ IP type: v6;  HW checksum: meaningless
>>>>
>>>> 2. For IPv4,
>>>> My patch:
>>>>
>>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */--------------------------IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
>>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */ ----------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: No
>>>>
>>>> You want:
>>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */-------------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
>>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4*/ ------------------------  IP type: v4; HW checksum: yes or no?
>>>>                                                                                                         driver/HW don't know, just know this is packet with IPv4 header.
>>>>                                                                                                         HW checksum: meaningless??
>>>
>>> Yep, that's why I also don't like that suggestion: PKT_TX_IPV4 itself doesn't contain all information.
>>> PMD will have to check PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  anyway.
>>
>> I prefer solution 2 because a flag should bring only 1 information.
>
> Why is that? For example in mbuf we already have a flag that brings 2 things:
> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */

For the user, it's clearer to have one information in a flag.
If you just look at the name of the flag, the natural meaning is 2/,
else we would need to rename them in:
   PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM
   PKT_TX_IPV4_NO_CKSUM

> If it would be possible to compress 10 meanings into 1 bit, I would happily do that.
> Unfortunately, it is rarely possible :)
>
>> It's simply saner and could fit to more situations in the future.
>
> Could you give an example of such situation?
> I personally couldn't come up with the case where #2 would have any real advantage.

in solution 2/, PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4 so checking
PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM is still enough in drivers.

In the driver, it is also simpler. With solution 1/:

/* check if we need ipcsum */
if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM)

/* check if packet is ipv4, may be needed to set a hw field */
if (flags & (PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM|PKT_TX_IPV4))


With solution 2/

/* check if we need ipcsum */
if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM)

/* check if packet is ipv4, may be needed to set a hw field */
if (flags & PKT_TX_IPV4)


I agree it can looks like a detail, but I really think it's important
to have the most logical and straightforward api for mbuf, as it's
the core of DPDK.

Regards,
Olivier
Ananyev, Konstantin Dec. 4, 2014, 9:42 p.m. UTC | #13
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 1:48 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Zhang, Helin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 12/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >>> 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> >>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> >>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> >>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> >>>
> >>> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> >>>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>> 2/
> >>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> >>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> >>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> >> There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the
> >> same bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware
> >> checksum offload is needed or not.
> >
> > Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  and we are going to remove it.
> >
> >> It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
> >
> > No one even planned it.
> >
> >> 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I guess
> >> other features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
> >>
> >> So here I got the option 3:
> >> PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM  /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
> >> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> >> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> >
> > Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's patch?
> > Except that you renamed PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM?
> 
> I think it's more like solution 2 with a renaming. And it is more
> coherent to always have "IPV4" on all flag names.

About renaming PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM: I don't mind.
But that means we would have to update all the drivers and apps that using PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM.
Again there are customers that using that flag in their apps right now.
They would have to change it too.
For me -  too much hassle for such small nit.

Konstantin

> 
> Regards,
> Olivier
Ananyev, Konstantin Dec. 4, 2014, 10:56 p.m. UTC | #14
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 1:51 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Thomas Monjalon
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Liu, Jijiang
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 12/04/2014 12:03 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >>>>> 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> >>>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> >>>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> >>>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> >>>>>
> >>>>> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2/
> >>>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> >>>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> >>>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> >>>>>
> >>>>> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an opinion?
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP version/type,
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. For IPv6
> >>>> IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4,  so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6
> >> packet,
> >>>> here we don't talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless. Right?
> >>>>
> >>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */         ------ IP type: v6;  HW checksum: meaningless
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. For IPv4,
> >>>> My patch:
> >>>>
> >>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */--------------------------IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> >>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */ ----------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: No
> >>>>
> >>>> You want:
> >>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */-------------------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> >>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4*/ ------------------------  IP type: v4; HW checksum: yes or no?
> >>>>                                                                                                         driver/HW don't know, just know this is packet with IPv4 header.
> >>>>                                                                                                         HW checksum: meaningless??
> >>>
> >>> Yep, that's why I also don't like that suggestion: PKT_TX_IPV4 itself doesn't contain all information.
> >>> PMD will have to check PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  anyway.
> >>
> >> I prefer solution 2 because a flag should bring only 1 information.
> >
> > Why is that? For example in mbuf we already have a flag that brings 2 things:
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> 
> For the user, it's clearer to have one information in a flag.
> If you just look at the name of the flag, the natural meaning is 2/,
> else we would need to rename them in:
>    PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM
>    PKT_TX_IPV4_NO_CKSUM
> 
> > If it would be possible to compress 10 meanings into 1 bit, I would happily do that.
> > Unfortunately, it is rarely possible :)
> >
> >> It's simply saner and could fit to more situations in the future.
> >
> > Could you give an example of such situation?
> > I personally couldn't come up with the case where #2 would have any real advantage.
> 
> in solution 2/, PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4 so checking
> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM is still enough in drivers.

Both 1 and 2 seems backward compatible.

> 
> In the driver, it is also simpler. With solution 1/:
> 
> /* check if we need ipcsum */
> if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM)
> 
> /* check if packet is ipv4, may be needed to set a hw field */
> if (flags & (PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM|PKT_TX_IPV4))

Do you really mean 1 here? When all 3 flags are mutually exclusive?
If so, it doesn't look right. For 1 both (PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM|PKT_TX_IPV4) should never be up.  

> 
> 
> With solution 2/
> 
> /* check if we need ipcsum */
> if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM)
> 
> /* check if packet is ipv4, may be needed to set a hw field */
> if (flags & PKT_TX_IPV4)

The thing is that it wouldn't be possible with FVL driver - it has to setup mutually exclusive fields for these 2 cases: 
PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM - ipv4 with HW checksum
PKT_TX_IPV4 - ipv4 without HW checksum

So with #2, driver has either:
if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) {...} else if (flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {...}
And always keep condition for PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM first.
Or do:
if (flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {...} if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) {...}
and in that case always keep condition for PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM last, so it always overwrite PKT_TX_IPV4 settings.

Basically with #2 PKT_TX_IPV4 is not enough to make a decision, even if it is set, we'll have to check for PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM anyway.

While with 1 we can put them in any order, both:
If (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) {...} else if (flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {...}
And
If (flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {...} else if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) {...}
Will work.

Konstantin

> 
> 
> I agree it can looks like a detail, but I really think it's important
> to have the most logical and straightforward api for mbuf, as it's
> the core of DPDK.
> 
> Regards,
> Olivier
Helin Zhang Dec. 5, 2014, 1:15 a.m. UTC | #15
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 6:20 PM
> To: Zhang, Helin; Olivier MATZ; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> Hi Helin,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zhang, Helin
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 6:52 AM
> > To: Olivier MATZ; Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and
> > repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:42 PM
> > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags
> > > and repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> > >
> > > Hi Konstantin,
> > >
> > > On 12/03/2014 01:59 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > >> I still think having a flag IPV4 + another flag IP_CHECKSUM is
> > > >> not appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, didn't get you here.
> > > > Are you talking about our discussion should PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and
> > > PKT_TX_IPV4 be mutually exclusive or not?
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > >> I though Konstantin agreed on other flags, but I may have
> > > >> misunderstood:
> > > >>
> > > >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/009070.html
> > > >
> > > > In that mail, I was talking about my suggestion to make
> > > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM,
> > > PKT_TX_IPV4 and PKT_TX_IPV6 to occupy 2 bits.
> > > > Something like:
> > > > #define	PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM	(1 << X)
> > > > #define	PKT_TX_IPV6		(2 << X)
> > > > #define 	PKT_TX_IPV4		(3 << X)
> > > >
> > > > "Even better, if we can squeeze these 3 flags into 2 bits.
> > > > Would save us 2 bits, plus might be handy, as in the PMD you can do:
> > > >
> > > > switch (ol_flags & TX_L3_MASK) {
> > > >      case TX_IPV4:
> > > >         ...
> > > >         break;
> > > >      case TX_IPV6:
> > > >         ...
> > > >         break;
> > > >      case TX_IP_CKSUM:
> > > >         ...
> > > >         break;
> > > > }"
> > > >
> > > > As you pointed out, it will break backward compatibility.
> > > > I agreed with that and self-NACKed it.
> > >
> > > ok, so we are back between:
> > >
> > > 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> > > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> > >
> > > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > 2/
> > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> > > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> > There is another bit flag named 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM' which uses the same
> > bit of 'PKT_TX_IP_CSUM'. It is for identifying if ipv4 hardware
> > checksum offload is needed or not.
> 
> Yes, 'PKT_TX_IPV4_CSUM is an alias to PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  and we are going to
> remove it.
> 
> > It seems that we do not need 'PKT_TX_IPV6_CSUM'.
> 
> No one even planned it.
> 
> > 'PKT_TX_IPV4' and 'PKT_TX_IPV6' just indicates its packet type, and I
> > guess other features should not be contained in it, according to its name.
> >
> > So here I got the option 3:
> > PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM  /* we want hw IPv4 cksum */
> > PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> 
> Hmm, and how this is different from what we have now in the Jijiang's patch?
> Except that you renamed PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM to PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM?
The comments are different, PKT_TX_IPV4 has different meanings.

Regards,
Helin

> 
> Konstantin
> 
> >
> > >
> > > with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> > >
> > >
> > > Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an
> opinion?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Olivier
> >
> > Regards,
> > Helin
Jijiang Liu Dec. 5, 2014, 4:17 a.m. UTC | #16
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 6:56 AM
> To: Olivier MATZ; Thomas Monjalon
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Liu, Jijiang
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and repalce
> PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 1:51 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Thomas Monjalon
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Liu, Jijiang
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] mbuf:add three TX ol_flags and
> > repalce PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 12/04/2014 12:03 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > >>>>> 1/ (Jijiang's patch)
> > >>>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> > >>>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > >>>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM and PKT_TX_IPV4 exclusive
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2/
> > >>>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */
> > >>>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */
> > >>>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> with PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Solution 2/ looks better from a user point of view. Anyone else has an
> opinion?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Let's think about these IPv4/6 flags in terms of checksum and IP
> > >>>> version/type,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1. For IPv6
> > >>>> IP checksum is meaningful only for IPv4,  so we define 'PKT_TX_IPV6      /*
> packet is IPv6 */' to tell driver/HW that this is IPV6
> > >> packet,
> > >>>> here we don't talk about the checksum for IPv6 as it is meaningless.
> Right?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> PKT_TX_IPV6      /* packet is IPv6 */         ------ IP type: v6;  HW checksum:
> meaningless
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2. For IPv4,
> > >>>> My patch:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */-----------
> ---------------IP type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> > >>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */ --------
> --------------- IP type: v4;  HW checksum: No
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You want:
> > >>>> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* we want hw IP cksum */-------------------------- IP
> type: v4;  HW checksum: Yes
> > >>>> PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4*/ ------------------------  IP type: v4; HW
> checksum: yes or no?
> > >>>>                                                                                                         driver/HW don't
> know, just know this is packet with IPv4 header.
> > >>>>                                                                                                         HW checksum:
> meaningless??
> > >>>
> > >>> Yep, that's why I also don't like that suggestion: PKT_TX_IPV4 itself doesn't
> contain all information.
> > >>> PMD will have to check PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  anyway.
> > >>
> > >> I prefer solution 2 because a flag should bring only 1 information.
> > >
> > > Why is that? For example in mbuf we already have a flag that brings 2 things:
> > > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM  /* packet is IPv4, and we want hw cksum */
> >
> > For the user, it's clearer to have one information in a flag.
> > If you just look at the name of the flag, the natural meaning is 2/,
> > else we would need to rename them in:
> >    PKT_TX_IPV4_CKSUM
> >    PKT_TX_IPV4_NO_CKSUM
> >
> > > If it would be possible to compress 10 meanings into 1 bit, I would happily do
> that.
> > > Unfortunately, it is rarely possible :)
> > >
> > >> It's simply saner and could fit to more situations in the future.
> > >
> > > Could you give an example of such situation?
> > > I personally couldn't come up with the case where #2 would have any real
> advantage.
> >
> > in solution 2/, PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM implies PKT_TX_IPV4 so checking
> > PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM is still enough in drivers.
> 
> Both 1 and 2 seems backward compatible.
> 
> >
> > In the driver, it is also simpler. With solution 1/:
> >
> > /* check if we need ipcsum */
> > if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM)
> >
> > /* check if packet is ipv4, may be needed to set a hw field */ if
> > (flags & (PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM|PKT_TX_IPV4))
> 
> Do you really mean 1 here? When all 3 flags are mutually exclusive?
> If so, it doesn't look right. For 1 both (PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM|PKT_TX_IPV4) should
> never be up.
> 
> >
> >
> > With solution 2/
> >
> > /* check if we need ipcsum */
> > if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM)
> >
> > /* check if packet is ipv4, may be needed to set a hw field */ if
> > (flags & PKT_TX_IPV4)
> 
> The thing is that it wouldn't be possible with FVL driver - it has to setup mutually
> exclusive fields for these 2 cases:
> PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM - ipv4 with HW checksum
> PKT_TX_IPV4 - ipv4 without HW checksum
> 
> So with #2, driver has either:
> if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) {...} else if (flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {...} And always
> keep condition for PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM first.
> Or do:
> if (flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {...} if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) {...} and in that case
> always keep condition for PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM last, so it always overwrite
> PKT_TX_IPV4 settings.
> 
> Basically with #2 PKT_TX_IPV4 is not enough to make a decision, even if it is set,
> we'll have to check for PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM anyway.
> 
> While with 1 we can put them in any order, both:
> If (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) {...} else if (flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {...} And If (flags
> & PKT_TX_IPV4) {...} else if (flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM) {...} Will work.
> 
> Konstantin

Yes. I agree.

PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4 */ 
This flag don't have too much offload meaning for TX side,  because we can't use this information to set transmit descriptor ( or set offload register ) precisely , so it is not a real offload flag.

PKT_TX_IPV4      /* packet is IPv4, and we don't want hw cksum */
It  is a offload flag, we can use this flag to set  transmit descriptor precisely.  
Yes, the comments are different, the PKT_TX_IPV4 has different meanings, but we have to consider which comment will affect if offload work or not.

BTW, we pay too much time on this topic...


> >
> >
> > I agree it can looks like a detail, but I really think it's important
> > to have the most logical and straightforward api for mbuf, as it's the
> > core of DPDK.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Olivier
Olivier Matz Dec. 5, 2014, 11:11 a.m. UTC | #17
Hi,

On 12/02/2014 04:06 PM, Jijiang Liu wrote:
> Replace PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM with PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT in order to indicate a packet is an UDP tunneling packet, and introduce 3 TX offload flags for outer IP TX checksum, which are PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 and PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 respectively;Rework csum forward engine and i40e PMD due to these changes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
> ---
>  app/test-pmd/csumonly.c         |    9 +++++++--
>  lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c      |    7 ++++++-
>  lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h      |   11 ++++++++++-
>  lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c |    6 +++---
>  4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 

As we need to conclude on this:
Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>

Just few minor comments below:

> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> index cbadf8e..6eb898f 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ extern "C" {
>   */
>  #define PKT_TX_TCP_SEG       (1ULL << 49)
>  
> -#define PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM   (1ULL << 50) /**< TX checksum of VXLAN computed by NIC */
> +#define PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT (1ULL << 50) /**< TX packet is an UDP tunneling packet */
>  #define PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST (1ULL << 51) /**< TX IEEE1588 packet to timestamp. */

We could replace the comment by:

"Tell the NIC it's a UDP tunneled packet. It must be specified when
 using hw outer checksum offload (PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM)"

>  
>  /**
> @@ -149,6 +149,15 @@ extern "C" {
>  
>  #define PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT      (1ULL << 57) /**< TX packet is a 802.1q VLAN packet. */
>  
> +/** Outer IP checksum of TX packet, computed by NIC for tunneling packet */
> +#define PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM   (1ULL << 58)

Maybe add:
"The tunnel type must also be specified, ex: PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT"

(altought I don't understand why the hw need this info)


Regards,
Olivier
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
index d8c080a..9094967 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
@@ -257,7 +257,7 @@  process_outer_cksums(void *outer_l3_hdr, uint16_t outer_ethertype,
 	uint64_t ol_flags = 0;
 
 	if (testpmd_ol_flags & TESTPMD_TX_OFFLOAD_VXLAN_CKSUM)
-		ol_flags |= PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM;
+		ol_flags |= PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT;
 
 	if (outer_ethertype == _htons(ETHER_TYPE_IPv4)) {
 		ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum = 0;
@@ -470,7 +470,12 @@  pkt_burst_checksum_forward(struct fwd_stream *fs)
 				{ PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
 				{ PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
 				{ PKT_TX_SCTP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_L4_MASK },
-				{ PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM, PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM },
+				{ PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT, PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT },
+				{ PKT_TX_IPV4, PKT_TX_IPV4 },
+				{ PKT_TX_IPV6, PKT_TX_IPV6 },
+				{ PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM, PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM },
+				{ PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4 },
+				{ PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6, PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6 },
 				{ PKT_TX_TCP_SEG, PKT_TX_TCP_SEG },
 			};
 			unsigned j;
diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
index 87c2963..1b14e02 100644
--- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
+++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
@@ -240,8 +240,13 @@  const char *rte_get_tx_ol_flag_name(uint64_t mask)
 	case PKT_TX_SCTP_CKSUM: return "PKT_TX_SCTP_CKSUM";
 	case PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM: return "PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM";
 	case PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST: return "PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST";
-	case PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM: return "PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM";
+	case PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT: return "PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT";
 	case PKT_TX_TCP_SEG: return "PKT_TX_TCP_SEG";
+	case PKT_TX_IPV4: return "PKT_TX_IPV4";
+	case PKT_TX_IPV6: return "PKT_TX_IPV6";
+	case PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM: return "PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM";
+	case PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4: return "PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4";
+	case PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6: return "PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6";
 	default: return NULL;
 	}
 }
diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
index cbadf8e..6eb898f 100644
--- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
+++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@  extern "C" {
  */
 #define PKT_TX_TCP_SEG       (1ULL << 49)
 
-#define PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM   (1ULL << 50) /**< TX checksum of VXLAN computed by NIC */
+#define PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT (1ULL << 50) /**< TX packet is an UDP tunneling packet */
 #define PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST (1ULL << 51) /**< TX IEEE1588 packet to timestamp. */
 
 /**
@@ -149,6 +149,15 @@  extern "C" {
 
 #define PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT      (1ULL << 57) /**< TX packet is a 802.1q VLAN packet. */
 
+/** Outer IP checksum of TX packet, computed by NIC for tunneling packet */
+#define PKT_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM   (1ULL << 58)
+
+/** Packet is outer IPv4 without requiring IP checksum offload for tunneling packet. */
+#define PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV4   (1ULL << 59)
+
+/** Tell the NIC it's an outer IPv6 packet for tunneling packet */
+#define PKT_TX_OUTER_IPV6    (1ULL << 60)
+
 /* Use final bit of flags to indicate a control mbuf */
 #define CTRL_MBUF_FLAG       (1ULL << 63) /**< Mbuf contains control data */
 
diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
index 2d2ef04..078e973 100644
--- a/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
+++ b/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
@@ -478,7 +478,7 @@  i40e_txd_enable_checksum(uint64_t ol_flags,
 	}
 
 	/* VXLAN packet TX checksum offload */
-	if (unlikely(ol_flags & PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM)) {
+	if (unlikely(ol_flags & PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT)) {
 		uint8_t l4tun_len;
 
 		l4tun_len = ETHER_VXLAN_HLEN + inner_l2_len;
@@ -1158,8 +1158,8 @@  i40e_calc_context_desc(uint64_t flags)
 {
 	uint64_t mask = 0ULL;
 
-	if (flags | PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM)
-		mask |= PKT_TX_VXLAN_CKSUM;
+	if (flags | PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT)
+		mask |= PKT_TX_UDP_TUNNEL_PKT;
 
 #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588
 	mask |= PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST;