Hello Sergey,
Thanks for the feedback.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@xxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 7:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] Add HW checksum offload support for
> RZ/G2L GbEthernet IP
>
> Hello!
>
> On 1/24/24 1:21 PM, Biju Das wrote:
>
> > This patch series aims to add HW checksum offload supported by TOE
> > module found on the RZ/G2L Gb ethernet IP.
>
> Your previous try was back in 2021, still the cover letter has the same
> issues (hm, I didn't point out those back then).
Thanks for correcting my bad English.
>
> > The TOE has hw support for calculating IP header and TCP/UDP/ICMP
> > checksum for both IPV4 and IPV6.
> >
> > For Rx, the result of checksum calculation is attached to last 4byte
> > of ethernet frames.
>
> "For Rx, the 4-byte result of checksum calculation is attached to the
> Ethernet frames", you wanted to say?
Ok.
>
> > First 2bytes is result of IPV4 header checksum and next 2 bytes is
> > TCP/UDP/ICMP.
>
> TCP/UDP/ICMP checksum, you mean?
Yes.
>
> > If frame does not have error "0000" attached to checksum calculation
>
> "If a frame does not have error, 0x0000 is attached as a checksum
> calculation result", you wanted to say?
>
> > result. For unsupported frames "ffff" is attached to checksum
> > calculation
>
> s/to/as/, again?
OK.
>
> > result. Cases like IPV6, IPV4 header is always set to "FFFF".
>
> In case of an IPv6 packet, IPv4 checksum is always set to 0xFFFF", you
> wanted to say?
>
> > For Tx, the result of checksum calculation is set to the checksum
> > field of each IPv4 Header/TCP/UDP/ICMP of ethernet frames. For the
> > unsupported frames, those fields are not changed. If a transmission
> > frame is an UDP frame of IPv4 and its checksum value in the UDP header
> > field is H'0000,
>
> I think you can call it just UDPv4...
OK.
>
> > TOE does not calculate checksum for UDP part of this frame as it is
> > optional function as per standards.
> >
> > Add Tx/Rx checksum offload supported by TOE for IPV4 and TCP/UDP
> protocols.
> >
> > Results of iperf3 in Mbps
> >
> > RZ/V2L:
> > TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {921,932}
> > TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {867,612}
> >
> > UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {950,946}
> > UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {952,920}
> >
> > RZ/G2L:
> > TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {920,936}
> > TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {871,626}
> >
> > UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {953,950}
> > UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {954,920}
> >
> > RZ/G2LC:
> > TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {927,936}
> > TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {889,626}
> >
> > UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {950,946}
> > UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {949,944}
>
> Too many figures, I think... :-)
> How RZ/G2L SoC is different from RZ/G2LC?
Just want to share with the wider community how the HW checksum is
improving the performance of various SoCs in the RZ/G2L family.
and the results show improved performance on all 3 SoCs.
>
> > v1->v2:
> > * Updated covering letter and results
> > * Fixed the sparse warnings for patch#1 by replacing __sum16->__wsum.
> >
> > Note:
> > This patches are tested with [1] without the CPU performance is not
> > good
>
> Without CPU? I guess the performance would be 0. Seriously, this is
> hardly parseable... :-)
without the patch [1] CPU performance is not good which impacts the
network throughput.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240117190545.596057-1-vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx/
Cheers,
Biju
