Message ID | 20240812133936.26344-1-dmarx@iol.unh.edu (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers |
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@inbox.dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@inbox.dpdk.org Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237B5457A1; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:39:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1552E4065A; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:39:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f180.google.com (mail-qt1-f180.google.com [209.85.160.180]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F68D4065A for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:39:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4519383592aso27723441cf.3 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 06:39:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1723469959; x=1724074759; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc :to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yLDuv38J/y/AVvoPSIoEx95pLJKRLB5e6B32PnnH5GA=; b=Yo51AUvddi2CcG8119zOtUEnJcpvEQBYMi8B42cRSAdU8M2GB1M4KvnNyB+PdcBfYn 4KiT/Pn7gzLlVuR6lyCZzz4TMXk41gFuUjoqc7btKbCdAcSMCcc8747/N6dNxVK9GF6X STMg28qdz+XDq2p+Zto47Rq+KIlDh3wJJjf4c= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723469959; x=1724074759; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc :to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=yLDuv38J/y/AVvoPSIoEx95pLJKRLB5e6B32PnnH5GA=; b=HT89tAtulNyFWzLyAWz4qJPjkHz0vXYa+U5z9atO/K5zT4qKTD+AQeiE9T3L6mZf0V OiMhvDQu+0LxsZqYpXPZdYUwycSuoxNwrY3+r9V0Io9HfTovFVXtwHzr0JxsIQu8NoZG eba5eVq2Xpta4jpa0ld0egcR8wHLLvDoZosQx0m9wBeul8/EjsGv+bSIqFneLVUm/kKT TsAJrpnOBxfAUXKz4s8BI8B5UoGCMEHXMq3CqmMiAORS85/ExhNlQrrGXDY0hMt5ChIZ znnO5bPH0eL3Qn6iVX7ey1NrhrJeqQp+h7mEAHk7/r2HpEINDodBwZ/S9b2YT2wVUHDr iyZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyePTdTJwhZde56pwIFbn27kylxJPNaV37kZyQzM2AtMTiSsKjU QfiposQOTDryjO3kXMgZnvwEOs+H4ZkvP/NV2XVhQ48dcczY+CErU1kpuHbBxY4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHxzAC24rwqfeiPrcqVRxwUh03dJv5cROzNWzZZR5jD1ZYoNIMXthcDoDkaon6v2mHmvQT4AQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:4aca:b0:446:5b64:cbc4 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-45349aa4feamr4664331cf.54.1723469959491; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 06:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dean-laptop.iol.unh.edu ([2606:4100:3880:1271:f9bd:24da:464d:6294]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d75a77b69052e-4531c291035sm23096801cf.89.2024.08.12.06.39.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 12 Aug 2024 06:39:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Dean Marx <dmarx@iol.unh.edu> To: probb@iol.unh.edu, npratte@iol.unh.edu, jspewock@iol.unh.edu, luca.vizzarro@arm.com, yoan.picchi@foss.arm.com, Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, paul.szczepanek@arm.com, juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Dean Marx <dmarx@iol.unh.edu> Subject: [RFC v1 0/2] dts: initial checksum offload suite Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 09:39:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20240812133936.26344-1-dmarx@iol.unh.edu> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.44.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org |
Series |
dts: initial checksum offload suite
|
|
Message
Dean Marx
Aug. 12, 2024, 1:39 p.m. UTC
Test suite for verifying checksum hardware offload through the PMD works as expected. This is done by checking the verbose output in testpmd while in csum forwarding mode, specifically the ol_flags section, to ensure they match the flags in the test plan. However, there are a few issues I noticed while writing the suite that made me hesitant to submit a patch: 1. SCTP hardware offload is not supported on any of the NICs I tested on. I've tried this on mlx5, i40e, and bnxt drivers and none of them support it. SCTP offload is used as part of almost every test case, so I removed SCTP packets from the suite entirely. I intend to keep it that way unless anyone is able to use the command "csum set sctp hw 0" without an "SCTP not supported" error. 2. There are two Tx checksum test cases, which involve checking the Tx flags section of verbose output to ensure they match the ones in the test plan. However, the Tx flags don't appear to change at all depending on what packet you send to testpmd, which leaves me with no way to verify correct behavior. I'm considering removing the Tx cases entirely, but they are a large chunk of the suite so if anyone disagrees I can look for more of a workaround. If anyone has any comments or advice about the issues above it is greatly appreciated. Dean Marx (2): dts: add csum HW offload to testpmd shell dts: checksum offload test suite dts/framework/config/conf_yaml_schema.json | 3 +- dts/framework/remote_session/testpmd_shell.py | 94 ++++++ dts/tests/TestSuite_checksum_offload.py | 288 ++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 384 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 dts/tests/TestSuite_checksum_offload.py