On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 10:53:08AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Jerin,
>
> > > > > I also share Olivier's concern about consuming 3 bits in ol_flags for
> > > > > that feature.
> > > > > Can it probably be squeezed somehow?
> > > > > Let say we reserve one flag that this information is present or not,
> > > > > and
> > > > > re-use one of rx-only fields for store additional information
> > > > > (packet_type, or so).
> > > > > Or might be some other approach.
> > > >
> > > > We are fine with this approach where we define one bit in Tx offloads
> > > > for pkt
> > > > marking and and 3 bits reused from Rx offload flags area.
> > > >
> > > > For example:
> > > >
> > > > @@ -186,10 +186,16 @@ extern "C" {
> > > >
> > > > /* add new RX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_FIRST_FREE */
> > > >
> > > > +/* Reused Rx offload bits for Tx offloads */
> > > > +#define PKT_X_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI (1ULL << 0)
> > > > +#define PKT_X_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP (1ULL << 1)
> > > > +#define PKT_X_TX_MARK_IP_ECN (1ULL << 2)
> > > > +
> > > > #define PKT_FIRST_FREE (1ULL << 23)
> > > > -#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 40)
> > > > +#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 39)
> > > >
> > > > /* add new TX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_LAST_FREE */
> > > > +#define PKT_TX_MARK_EN (1ULL << 40)
> > > >
> > > > Is this fine ?
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on this approach which uses only 1 bit in Tx flags out of 18
> > > and reuse unused Rx flag bits ?
>
> My thought was not about re-defining the flags (I think it is better to keep
> them intact),
> but adding a union for one of rx-only fields (packet_type/rss/timestamp).
Ok. Adding a union field at packet_type field is also fine like below.
@@ -187,9 +187,10 @@ extern "C" {
/* add new RX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_FIRST_FREE */
#define PKT_FIRST_FREE (1ULL << 23)
-#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 40)
+#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 39)
/* add new TX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_LAST_FREE */
+#define PKT_TX_MARK_EN (1ULL << 40)
/**
* Outer UDP checksum offload flag. This flag is used for enabling
@@ -461,6 +462,14 @@ enum {
#endif
};
+/* Tx packet marking flags in rte_mbuf::tx_mark.
+ * Valid only when PKT_TX_MARK_EN is set in
+ * rte_mbuf::ol_flags.
+ */
+#define TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI (1ULL << 0)
+#define TX_MARK_IP_DSCP (1ULL << 1)
+#define TX_MARK_IP_ECN (1ULL << 2)
+
/**
* The generic rte_mbuf, containing a packet mbuf.
*/
@@ -543,6 +552,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
};
uint32_t inner_l4_type:4; /**< Inner L4 type. */
};
+ struct {
+ uint32_t reserved:29;
+ uint32_t tx_mark:3;
+ };
};
Please correct me if this is not what you mean.
>
> >
> > + Techboard
> >
> > There is a related thread going on
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mails.dpdk.org_archives_dev_2020-2DMay_168810.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=FZ_tPCbgFOh18zwRPO9H0yDx8VW38vuapifdDfc8SFQ&m=nyV4Rud03HW6DbWMpyvOCulQNkagmfo0wKtrwQ7zmmg&s=VuktoUb_xoLsHKdB9mV87x67cP9tXk3DqVXptt9nF_s&e=
> >
> >
> > If there is no consensus on email, then I would like to add this item
> > to the next TB meeting.
>
> Ok, I'll add that to tomorrow meeting agenda.
> Konstantin
>
