[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v2 2/5] xen-netback: Add support for IPv6 checksum offload from guest
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: [...] > > > -#define PKT_PROT_LEN (ETH_HLEN + \ > > > - VLAN_HLEN + \ > > > - sizeof(struct iphdr) + MAX_IPOPTLEN + \ > > > - sizeof(struct tcphdr) + MAX_TCP_OPTION_SPACE) > > > +#define PKT_PROT_LEN 128 > > > > > > > Where does 128 come from? > > > > It's just an arbitrary power of 2 that was chosen because it seems to > cover most likely v6 headers and all v4 headers. > Hmm... How about using the value of MAX_TCP_HEADER? I guess that can cover all V4 / V6 headers. MAX_TCP_HEADER varies, depending on configuration. To make sure we can accommodate all guests packet we might need to use its maximum value which can be as big as 128 + 128 + 48. > > > if (recalculate_partial_csum) { > > > struct tcphdr *tcph = tcp_hdr(skb); > > > + > > > + header_size = skb->network_header + > > > + off + > > > + sizeof(struct tcphdr) + > > > + MAX_TCP_OPTION_SPACE; > > > + maybe_pull_tail(skb, header_size); > > > + > > > > I presume this function is checksum_setup stripped down to handle IPv4 > > packet. What's the purpose of changing its behaviour? Why the pull_tail > > here? > > > > We have to make sure that the TCP header is in the linear area as we > are about to write to the checksum field. In practice, the 128 byte > pull should guarantee this but in case that is varied later I wanted > to make sure things did not start to fail in an add way. > If you already set the pull size to maximum possible value then this will not be necessary anymore, right? > > > + while ((off <= sizeof(struct ipv6hdr) + ntohs(ipv6h->payload_len)) > > && > > > + !done) { > > > + /* We only access at most the first 2 bytes of any option > > header > > > + * to determine the next one. > > > + */ > > > + header_size = skb->network_header + off + 2; > > > + maybe_pull_tail(skb, header_size); > > > + > > > > Will this cause performance problem? Is it possible that you pull too > > many times? > > > > I guess it means we may get two pulls for the TCP/UDP headers rather > than one so could push the pulls into the individual cases if you > think it will affect performance that badly. Hmm... Not sure I get what you mean here. The main problem I'm seeing is that maybe_pull_tail is called in every loop. I would like to see as few pulls as possible because __pskb_pull_tail can be expensive and only expected to use in "exceptional cases" (quoted from the comment above that function). Is it possible to pull TCP_MAX_HEADER bytes once to eliminate all other pulls in checksum_setup{,_ipv4,_ipv6}? > [...] > > > > Can you make the logic explicit here? > > > > case IPPROTO_TCP: > > case IPPROTO_UDP: > > done = true; > > break; > > default: > > break; > > > > Another minor suggestion is that change "done" to "found" because you're > > trying to find the two type of headers. > > > > Yes, I could code it that way if you prefer. > Explicity is better than implicity IMHO. After this change could you also move the default branch (netdev_err) in the following "switch" to the first "switch". Wei. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |