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: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:02:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57581762.4070003@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2EF2F5C0CC56984AA024D0B180335FCB13DDC6C0@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Hi,
On 06/08/2016 10:22 AM, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
>>> 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.
> [Sugesh] True, If that's the case, Will you considering to implement IP
> checksum flags as well along with L4?
> As you said , this will be useful when we offload packet lookup itself into the NICs(May be
> when using Flow director) ?
Yes, I plan to implement the same rx status flags (good, bad, unknown,
none) for rx IP checksum too.
Regards,
Olivier
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-08 13:02 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
2016-06-08 8:22 ` Chandran, Sugesh
2016-06-08 13:02 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
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=57581762.4070003@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.