From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: "Chandran, Sugesh" <sugesh.chandran@intel.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
"Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
Subject: Re: about rx checksum flags
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:43:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57517B5C.4040206@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2EF2F5C0CC56984AA024D0B180335FCB13DDA800@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Hi,
On 06/02/2016 09:42 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
>>>> Do you also suggest to drop IP checksum flags?
>>> > >
>>> > > IP checksum offload is mostly useless. If application needs to look at
>>> > > IP, it can do whole checksum in very few instructions, the whole
>>> > > header is in the same cache line as src/dst so the HW offload is really no
>> > help.
>>> > >
> [Sugesh] The checksum offload can boost the tunneling performance in OVS.
> I guess the IP checksum also important as L4. In some cases, UDP checksum is
> zero and no need to validate it. But Ip checksum is present on all the packets and that must be
> validated all the time. At higher packet rate, the ip checksum offload can offer slight
> performance improvement. What do you think??
>
Agree, in some situations (and this is even more true with packet
types / smartnics), the application could process without accessing
the packet data if we keep the IP cksum flags.
Regards,
Olivier
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-03 12:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-30 15:26 about rx checksum flags Olivier Matz
2016-05-30 16:07 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2016-05-31 2:43 ` Tan, Jianfeng
2016-05-31 10:08 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2016-05-31 19:11 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-05-31 8:09 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-05-31 19:11 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-05-31 20:28 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-05-31 20:58 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-05-31 22:02 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-06-01 9:06 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-06-02 7:42 ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-06-03 12:43 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2016-06-08 8:22 ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-06-08 13:02 ` Olivier Matz
2016-06-10 16:15 ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-07-06 12:52 ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-07-06 13:18 ` Olivier MATZ
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=57517B5C.4040206@6wind.com \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jianfeng.tan@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=sugesh.chandran@intel.com \
--cc=yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.