From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] net/virtio: improve offload check
	performance
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:10:57 +0800
Message-ID: <20180605031057.GA5404@debian>
References: <20180601124758.22652-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
 <20180601124758.22652-5-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
 <20180604115507.GA21406@debian>
 <5b8d8122-5521-2f65-51e8-224f49f8fb57@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Cc: zhihong.wang@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org
To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1034E1B167
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  5 Jun 2018 05:10:47 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5b8d8122-5521-2f65-51e8-224f49f8fb57@redhat.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:29:56PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 01:55 PM, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:47:58PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
[...]
> > > @@ -253,13 +246,15 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct virtnet_tx *txvq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie,
> > >   	struct virtio_net_hdr *hdr;
> > >   	int offload;
> > > -	offload = tx_offload_enabled(vq->hw);
> > >   	head_idx = vq->vq_desc_head_idx;
> > >   	idx = head_idx;
> > >   	dxp = &vq->vq_descx[idx];
> > >   	dxp->cookie = (void *)cookie;
> > >   	dxp->ndescs = needed;
> > > +	offload = vq->hw->has_tx_offload &&
> > > +		(cookie->ol_flags & PKT_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK);
> > 
> > If features aren't negotiated, I think there is no need to
> > check ol_flags and update the net header.
> 
> Isn't what the code is doing?
> has_tx_offload will be false if none of the Tx offload features have
> been negotiated, so ol_flags won't be checked in that case.

Hmm.. Somehow I treated 'and' as 'or'..

I have another question. When 'can_push' is false
and 'vq->hw->has_tx_offload' is true, there will
be a chance that virtio net hdr won't be zeroed
when ol_flags doesn't specify any Tx offloads.

Best regards,
Tiwei Bie