[dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags

Chandran, Sugesh sugesh.chandran at intel.com
Fri Jun 10 18:15:48 CEST 2016



Regards
_Sugesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 2:02 PM
> To: Chandran, Sugesh <sugesh.chandran at intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Stephen Hemminger
> <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Richardson,
> Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Adrien Mazarguil
> <adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com>; Tan, Jianfeng <jianfeng.tan at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] about rx checksum flags
> 
> 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.
[Sugesh] That's great!, Thank you Olivier.
> 
> Regards,
> Olivier


More information about the dev mailing list