| Message ID | 1441014108-3125-5-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers |
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F5391B3; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:42:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA218E9F for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:42:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2015 02:42:08 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,439,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="552052832" Received: from shvmail01.sh.intel.com ([10.239.29.42]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2015 02:42:07 -0700 Received: from shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (shecgisg004.sh.intel.com [10.239.29.89]) by shvmail01.sh.intel.com with ESMTP id t7V9g6A6007091; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:42:06 +0800 Received: from shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id t7V9g3if003196; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:42:05 +0800 Received: (from jijiangl@localhost) by shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id t7V9g3SX003192; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:42:03 +0800 From: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com> To: dev@dpdk.org Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:41:44 +0800 Message-Id: <1441014108-3125-5-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.12.2 In-Reply-To: <1441014108-3125-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> References: <1441014108-3125-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO offload X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://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: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> |
Commit Message
Jijiang Liu
Aug. 31, 2015, 9:41 a.m. UTC
Enqueue TSO4/6 offload.
Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
---
drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Comments
> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jijiang Liu > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 5:42 PM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO offload > > Enqueue TSO4/6 offload. > > Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com> > --- > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > index c5b53bb..4c2d838 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > @@ -198,6 +198,28 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_recv_refill(struct virtqueue *vq, > struct rte_mbuf *cookie) > return 0; > } > > +static void > +virtqueue_enqueue_offload(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf *m, > + uint16_t idx, uint16_t hdr_sz) > +{ > + struct virtio_net_hdr *hdr = (struct virtio_net_hdr *)(uintptr_t) > + (txvq->virtio_net_hdr_addr + idx * hdr_sz); > + > + if (m->tso_segsz != 0 && m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG) { > + if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) { > + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, > VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4)) > + return; Do we need return error if host can't handle tso for the packet? > + hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV4; > + } else if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV6) { > + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, > VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6)) > + return; Same as above > + hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV6; > + } Do we need else branch for the case of neither tcpv4 nor tcpv6? > + hdr->gso_size = m->tso_segsz; > + hdr->hdr_len = m->l2_len + m->l3_len + m->l4_len; > + } > +} > + > static int > virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) > { @@ -221,6 +243,7 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct virtqueue *txvq, > struct rte_mbuf *cookie) > dxp->cookie = (void *)cookie; > dxp->ndescs = needed; > > + virtqueue_enqueue_offload(txvq, cookie, idx, head_size); If TSO is not enabled in the feature bit, how to resolve here? > start_dp = txvq->vq_ring.desc; > start_dp[idx].addr = > txvq->virtio_net_hdr_mem + idx * head_size; > -- > 1.7.7.6
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ouyang, Changchun > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 8:29 PM > To: Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Ouyang, Changchun > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO offload > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jijiang Liu > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 5:42 PM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO offload > > > > Enqueue TSO4/6 offload. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > index c5b53bb..4c2d838 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > @@ -198,6 +198,28 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_recv_refill(struct virtqueue > > *vq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static void > > +virtqueue_enqueue_offload(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf *m, > > + uint16_t idx, uint16_t hdr_sz) > > +{ > > + struct virtio_net_hdr *hdr = (struct virtio_net_hdr *)(uintptr_t) > > + (txvq->virtio_net_hdr_addr + idx * hdr_sz); > > + > > + if (m->tso_segsz != 0 && m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG) { > > + if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) { > > + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, > > VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4)) > > + return; > > Do we need return error if host can't handle tso for the packet? > > > + hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV4; > > + } else if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV6) { > > + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, > > VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6)) > > + return; > > Same as above > > > + hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV6; > > + } > > Do we need else branch for the case of neither tcpv4 nor tcpv6? > > > + hdr->gso_size = m->tso_segsz; > > + hdr->hdr_len = m->l2_len + m->l3_len + m->l4_len; > > + } > > +} > > + > > static int > > virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf > > *cookie) { @@ -221,6 +243,7 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct virtqueue > > *txvq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) > > dxp->cookie = (void *)cookie; > > dxp->ndescs = needed; > > > > + virtqueue_enqueue_offload(txvq, cookie, idx, head_size); > > If TSO is not enabled in the feature bit, how to resolve here? The TSO enablement check is in the function. If TSO is not enabled, and don't need to fill virtio_net_hdr now. > > start_dp = txvq->vq_ring.desc; > > start_dp[idx].addr = > > txvq->virtio_net_hdr_mem + idx * head_size; > > -- > > 1.7.7.6
> -----Original Message----- > From: Liu, Jijiang > Sent: Monday, September 7, 2015 2:11 PM > To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO offload > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ouyang, Changchun > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 8:29 PM > > To: Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: Ouyang, Changchun > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO > > offload > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jijiang Liu > > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 5:42 PM > > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO > > > offload > > > > > > Enqueue TSO4/6 offload. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > index c5b53bb..4c2d838 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > @@ -198,6 +198,28 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_recv_refill(struct virtqueue > > > *vq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +static void > > > +virtqueue_enqueue_offload(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf > *m, > > > + uint16_t idx, uint16_t hdr_sz) > > > +{ > > > + struct virtio_net_hdr *hdr = (struct virtio_net_hdr *)(uintptr_t) > > > + (txvq->virtio_net_hdr_addr + idx * hdr_sz); > > > + > > > + if (m->tso_segsz != 0 && m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG) { > > > + if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) { > > > + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4)) > > > + return; > > > > Do we need return error if host can't handle tso for the packet? > > > > > + hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV4; > > > + } else if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV6) { > > > + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6)) > > > + return; > > > > Same as above > > > > > + hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV6; > > > + } > > > > Do we need else branch for the case of neither tcpv4 nor tcpv6? > > > > > + hdr->gso_size = m->tso_segsz; > > > + hdr->hdr_len = m->l2_len + m->l3_len + m->l4_len; > > > + } > > > +} > > > + > > > static int > > > virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf > > > *cookie) { @@ -221,6 +243,7 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct > > > virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) > > > dxp->cookie = (void *)cookie; > > > dxp->ndescs = needed; > > > > > > + virtqueue_enqueue_offload(txvq, cookie, idx, head_size); > > > > If TSO is not enabled in the feature bit, how to resolve here? > > The TSO enablement check is in the function. > > If TSO is not enabled, and don't need to fill virtio_net_hdr now. Here I mean if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG) is true, that is to say, the virtio-pmd user expect do tso in vhost or virtio, but the host feature bit doesn't support it, then it should handle this case, either handle it in virtio pmd, or return error to caller. Otherwise the packet with flag tso maybe can't be send out normally. Am I right? > > > > start_dp = txvq->vq_ring.desc; > > > start_dp[idx].addr = > > > txvq->virtio_net_hdr_mem + idx * head_size; > > > -- > > > 1.7.7.6
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ouyang, Changchun > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 6:18 PM > To: Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Ouyang, Changchun > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO offload > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Liu, Jijiang > > Sent: Monday, September 7, 2015 2:11 PM > > To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO > > offload > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ouyang, Changchun > > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 8:29 PM > > > To: Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org > > > Cc: Ouyang, Changchun > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO > > > offload > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jijiang Liu > > > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 5:42 PM > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO > > > > offload > > > > > > > > Enqueue TSO4/6 offload. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > > b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > > index c5b53bb..4c2d838 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > > @@ -198,6 +198,28 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_recv_refill(struct > > > > virtqueue *vq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > +static void > > > > +virtqueue_enqueue_offload(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf > > *m, > > > > + uint16_t idx, uint16_t hdr_sz) { > > > > + struct virtio_net_hdr *hdr = (struct virtio_net_hdr *)(uintptr_t) > > > > + (txvq->virtio_net_hdr_addr + idx * hdr_sz); > > > > + > > > > + if (m->tso_segsz != 0 && m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG) { > > > > + if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) { > > > > + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, > > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4)) > > > > + return; > > > > > > Do we need return error if host can't handle tso for the packet? > > > > > > > + hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV4; > > > > + } else if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV6) { > > > > + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, > > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6)) > > > > + return; > > > > > > Same as above > > > > > > > + hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV6; > > > > + } > > > > > > Do we need else branch for the case of neither tcpv4 nor tcpv6? > > > > > > > + hdr->gso_size = m->tso_segsz; > > > > + hdr->hdr_len = m->l2_len + m->l3_len + m->l4_len; > > > > + } > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > static int > > > > virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf > > > > *cookie) { @@ -221,6 +243,7 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct > > > > virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) > > > > dxp->cookie = (void *)cookie; > > > > dxp->ndescs = needed; > > > > > > > > + virtqueue_enqueue_offload(txvq, cookie, idx, head_size); > > > > > > If TSO is not enabled in the feature bit, how to resolve here? > > > > The TSO enablement check is in the function. > > > > If TSO is not enabled, and don't need to fill virtio_net_hdr now. > > Here I mean if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG) is true, that is to say, the virtio- > pmd user expect do tso in vhost or virtio, but the host feature bit doesn't > support it, then it should handle this case, either handle it in virtio pmd, or return > error to caller. > Otherwise the packet with flag tso maybe can't be send out normally. > Am I right? Not exactly, if host feature bit doesn't support TSO, and the TSO flag cannot been set in this function, and then continue processing the packet in host. Now I think it had better return an error, and don't continue processing this packet. > > > > > > start_dp = txvq->vq_ring.desc; > > > > start_dp[idx].addr = > > > > txvq->virtio_net_hdr_mem + idx * head_size; > > > > -- > > > > 1.7.7.6
> -----Original Message----- > From: Liu, Jijiang > Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:21 AM > To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO offload > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ouyang, Changchun > > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 6:18 PM > > To: Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: Ouyang, Changchun > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO > > offload > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Liu, Jijiang > > > Sent: Monday, September 7, 2015 2:11 PM > > > To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO > > > offload > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ouyang, Changchun > > > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 8:29 PM > > > > To: Liu, Jijiang; dev@dpdk.org > > > > Cc: Ouyang, Changchun > > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO > > > > offload > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jijiang Liu > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 5:42 PM > > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 4/8] driver/virtio:enqueue TSO > > > > > offload > > > > > > > > > > Enqueue TSO4/6 offload. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > > > b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > > > index c5b53bb..4c2d838 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c > > > > > @@ -198,6 +198,28 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_recv_refill(struct > > > > > virtqueue *vq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > +static void > > > > > +virtqueue_enqueue_offload(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct > > > > > +rte_mbuf > > > *m, > > > > > + uint16_t idx, uint16_t hdr_sz) { > > > > > + struct virtio_net_hdr *hdr = (struct virtio_net_hdr > *)(uintptr_t) > > > > > + (txvq->virtio_net_hdr_addr + idx * > hdr_sz); > > > > > + > > > > > + if (m->tso_segsz != 0 && m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG) { > > > > > + if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) { > > > > > + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, > > > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4)) > > > > > + return; > > > > > > > > Do we need return error if host can't handle tso for the packet? > > > > > > > > > + hdr->gso_type = > VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV4; > > > > > + } else if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV6) { > > > > > + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, > > > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6)) > > > > > + return; > > > > > > > > Same as above > > > > > > > > > + hdr->gso_type = > VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV6; > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > Do we need else branch for the case of neither tcpv4 nor tcpv6? > > > > > > > > > + hdr->gso_size = m->tso_segsz; > > > > > + hdr->hdr_len = m->l2_len + m->l3_len + m->l4_len; > > > > > + } > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > static int > > > > > virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf > > > > > *cookie) { @@ -221,6 +243,7 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct > > > > > virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) > > > > > dxp->cookie = (void *)cookie; > > > > > dxp->ndescs = needed; > > > > > > > > > > + virtqueue_enqueue_offload(txvq, cookie, idx, head_size); > > > > > > > > If TSO is not enabled in the feature bit, how to resolve here? > > > > > > The TSO enablement check is in the function. > > > > > > If TSO is not enabled, and don't need to fill virtio_net_hdr now. > > > > Here I mean if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG) is true, that is to say, > > the virtio- pmd user expect do tso in vhost or virtio, but the host > > feature bit doesn't support it, then it should handle this case, > > either handle it in virtio pmd, or return error to caller. > > Otherwise the packet with flag tso maybe can't be send out normally. > > Am I right? > Not exactly, if host feature bit doesn't support TSO, and the TSO flag cannot > been set in this function, and then continue processing the packet in host. TSO flag is set by upper level, so it could be set even if host feature bit doesn't support TSO, You know the other path is also supporting TSO in guest feature bit. Currently the virtio driver can't support TSO, at least we should return error for this possible case. > Now I think it had better return an error, and don't continue processing this > packet. > > > > > > > > > start_dp = txvq->vq_ring.desc; > > > > > start_dp[idx].addr = > > > > > txvq->virtio_net_hdr_mem + idx * head_size; > > > > > -- > > > > > 1.7.7.6
diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c index c5b53bb..4c2d838 100644 --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c @@ -198,6 +198,28 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_recv_refill(struct virtqueue *vq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) return 0; } +static void +virtqueue_enqueue_offload(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf *m, + uint16_t idx, uint16_t hdr_sz) +{ + struct virtio_net_hdr *hdr = (struct virtio_net_hdr *)(uintptr_t) + (txvq->virtio_net_hdr_addr + idx * hdr_sz); + + if (m->tso_segsz != 0 && m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG) { + if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) { + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4)) + return; + hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV4; + } else if (m->ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV6) { + if (!vtpci_with_feature(txvq->hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6)) + return; + hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV6; + } + hdr->gso_size = m->tso_segsz; + hdr->hdr_len = m->l2_len + m->l3_len + m->l4_len; + } +} + static int virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) { @@ -221,6 +243,7 @@ virtqueue_enqueue_xmit(struct virtqueue *txvq, struct rte_mbuf *cookie) dxp->cookie = (void *)cookie; dxp->ndescs = needed; + virtqueue_enqueue_offload(txvq, cookie, idx, head_size); start_dp = txvq->vq_ring.desc; start_dp[idx].addr = txvq->virtio_net_hdr_mem + idx * head_size;