DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / Atom feed
From: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Cc: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"pbhagavatula@marvell.com" <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>,
	"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	"Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
	"Kovacevic, Marko" <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
	Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
	"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	"ktraynor@redhat.com" <ktraynor@redhat.com>,
	Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: add flow action type update as	an offload
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:40:57 +0000
Message-ID: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E7061153DC6603@SHSMSX105.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1784584.NQqjHnNvIa@xps>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 7:04 PM
> To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
> Cc: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> pbhagavatula@marvell.com; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>;
> jerinj@marvell.com; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara@intel.com>;
> Kovacevic, Marko <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>; Adrien Mazarguil
> <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>; david.marchand@redhat.com;
> ktraynor@redhat.com; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: add flow action type update as an
> offload
> 
> 08/11/2019 11:42, Andrew Rybchenko:
> > On 11/8/19 1:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 08/11/2019 09:35, Andrew Rybchenko:
> > >> The problem:
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> PMD wants to know before port start if application wants to to use
> > >> flow MARK/FLAG in the future. It is required because:
> > >>
> > >> 1. HW may be configured in a different way to reserve resources
> > >>    for MARK/FLAG delivery
> > >>
> > >> 2. Datapath implementation choice may depend on it (e.g. vPMD
> > >>    is faster, but does not support MARK)
> > >
> > > Thank you for the clear problem statement.
> > > I agree with it. This is a real design issue.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Discussed solutions:
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > May be it is not 100% clear since below are alternatives.
> >
> > >> A. Explicit Rx offload suggested by the patch.
> > >>
> > >> B. Implicit by validation of a flow rule with MARK/FLAG actions used.
> > >>
> > >> C. Use dynamic field/flag (i.e. application registers dynamic field
> > >>    and/or flag and PMD uses lookup to solve the problem) plus part
> > >>    of (B) to discover if a feature is supported.
> > >
> > > The dynamic field should be registered via a new API function named
> > > '<feature>_init'.
> > > It means the application must explicit request the feature.
> > > I agree this is the way to go.
> >
> > If I understand your statement correctly, but (C) is not ideal since
> > it looks global. If registered dynamic field of mbuf and is flag that
> > the feature should be enabled, it is a flag to all ports/devices.
> >
> > >> All solutions require changes in applications which use these
> > >> features. There is a deprecation notice in place which advertises
> > >> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_FLOW_MARK addition, but may be it is OK to
> > >> substitute it with solution (B) or (C). Solution (C) requires
> > >> changes since it should be combined with (B) in order to understand
> > >> if the feature is supported.
> > >
> > > I don't understand.
> > > Application request and PMD support are two different things.
> > > PMD support must be via rte_flow validation on a case by case anyway.
> >
> > I mean that application wants to understand if the feature is
> > supported. Then, it wants to enable it. In the case of (B), if I
> > understand the solution correctly, there is no explicit way to enable,
> > PMD just detects it because of discovery is done (that's what I mean
> > by "implicit" and it is a drawback from my point of view, but still
> > could be considered). (C) solves the problem of (B).
> >
> > >> Advantages and drawbacks of solutions:
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> 1. The main drawback of (A) is a "duplication" since we already
> > >>    have a way to request flow MARK using rte_flow API.
> > >>    I don't fully agree that it is a duplication, but I agree
> > >>    that it sounds like duplication and complicates a bit flow
> > >>    MARK usage by applications. (B) complicates it as well.
> > >>
> > >> 2. One more drawback of the solution (A) is the necessity of
> > >>    similar solution for META and it eats one more offload bit.
> > >>    Yes, that's true and I think it is not a problem.
> > >>    It would make it easier for applications to find out if
> > >>    either MARK or META is supported.
> > >>
> > >> 3. The main advantage of the solution (A) is simplicity.
> > >>    It is simple for application to understand if it supported.
> > >>    It is simple in PMD to understand that it is required.
> > >>    It is simple to disable it - just reconfigure.
> > >>    Also it is easier to document it - just mention that
> > >>    the offload should be supported and enabled.
> > >>
> > >> 4. The main advantage of the solution (B) is no "duplication".
> > >>    I agree that it is valid argument. Solving the problem
> > >>    without extra entities is always nice, but unfortunately
> > >>    it is too complex in this case.
> > >>
> > >> 5. The main drawback of the solution (B) is the complexity.
> > >>    It is necessary to choose a flow rule which should be used
> > >>    as a criteria. It could be hardware dependent.
> > >>    Complex logic is require in PMD if it wants to address the
> > >>    problem and control MARK delivery based on validated flow
> > >>    rules. It adds dependency between start/stop processing and
> > >>    flow rules validation code.
> > >>    It is pretty complicated to document it.
> > >>
> > >> 6. Useless enabling of the offload in the case of solution (A)
> > >>    if really used flow rules do not support MARK looks like
> > >>    drawback as well, but easily mitigated by a combination
> > >>    with solution (B) and only required if the application wants
> > >>    to dive in the level of optimization and complexity and
> > >>    makes sense if application knows required flow rules in
> > >>    advance. So, it is not a problem in this case.
> > >>
> > >> 7. Solution (C) has drawbacks of the solution (B) for
> > >>    applications to understand if these features are supported,
> > >>    but no drawbacks in PMD, since explicit criteria is used to
> > >>    enable/disable (dynamic field/flag lookup).
> > >>
> > >> 8. Solution (C) is nice since it avoids "duplication".
> > >>
> > >> 9. The main drawback of the solution (C) is asymmetry.
> > >>    As it was discussed in the case of RX_TIMESTAMP
> > >>    (if I remember it correctly):
> > >>     - PMD advertises RX_TIMESTAMP offload capability
> > >>     - application enables the offload
> > >>     - PMD registers dynamic field for timestamp
> > >>    Solution (C):
> > >>      - PMD advertises nothing
> > >>      - application uses solution (B) to understand if
> > >>        these features are supported
> > >>      - application registers dynamic field/flag
> > >>      - PMD does lookup and solve the problem
> > >>    The asymmetry could be partially mitigated if RX_TIMESTAMP
> > >>    solution is changed to require an application to register
> > >>    dynamic fields and PMD to do lookup if the offload is
> > >>    enabled. So, the only difference will be in no offload
> > >>    in the case of flow MARK/FLAG and usage of complex logic
> > >>    to understand if it is supported or no.
> > >>    May be it would be really good since it will allow to
> > >>    have dynamic fields registered before mempool population.
> > >>
> > >> 10. Common drawback of solutions (B) and (C) is no granularity.
> > >>     Solution (A) may be per queue while (B) and (C) cannot be
> > >>     per queue. Moreover (C) looks global - for all devices.
> > >>     It could be really painful.
> > >>
> > >> (C) is nice, but I still vote for simplicity and granularity of
> > >> (A).
> > >
> > > I vote for clear separation of application needs and PMD support, by
> > > using the method C (dynamic fields).
> > > I agree timestamp must use the same path.
> > > I agree it's complicate because we don't know in advance whether a
> > > flow rule will be accepted, but that's the reality, config is complex.
> >
> > Do you think that global nature of the (C) is acceptable?
> 
> That's a good question.
> Maybe the feature request should be per port.
> In this case, we are back to solution A with a flag per port?
> 
> Note that A and C will not guarantee that the offload will be possible.
> We need B (flow rule validation) anyway.

I may not understand how solution B can works well for all the cases.

A rte_flow rule can be issued after dev_start, which means the rx_burst function is already selected at that time, 
so does that mean the driver need to switch from a non- mark offload aware path to a mark offload aware path without stop device? or it has to reject the flow? 
The question is if we have 2 data path, one support some offload , one not but more fast, which one should be selected during dev_start? Isn't Offload widely used to solve this problem?

I think the option A solve all the problems, option C might also works, but A is looks much straightforward for me.

Regards
Qi


> 
> It seems A, B, C are not alternatives but all required as pieces of a puzzle...
> 


  reply index

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-25 15:21 pbhagavatula
2019-10-25 15:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] drivers/net: update Rx flow flag and mark capabilities pbhagavatula
2019-10-28 10:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: add flow action type update as an offload Ori Kam
2019-10-28 11:53   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-10-28 14:00     ` Ori Kam
2019-10-31  9:49       ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-10-31 14:49         ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-10-31 23:59           ` Zhang, Qi Z
2019-11-01 11:35           ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-03 10:22             ` Ori Kam
2019-11-03 11:41               ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-04 18:37                 ` Ori Kam
2019-11-05  6:50                   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-05  8:35                     ` Ori Kam
2019-11-05 11:30                       ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-05 16:37                         ` Ori Kam
2019-11-06  6:40                           ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-06  7:42                             ` Ori Kam
2019-11-08  8:35                               ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-08  9:00                                 ` Tom Barbette
2019-11-08 10:28                                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-08 10:42                                   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-08 11:03                                     ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-08 11:40                                       ` Zhang, Qi Z [this message]
2019-11-08 12:12                                         ` Ori Kam
2019-11-08 12:20                                           ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-08 12:42                                             ` Ori Kam
2019-11-08 13:16                                               ` Zhang, Qi Z
2019-11-08 13:26                                                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-08 13:06                                         ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-08 12:00                                       ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-08 13:17                                         ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-08 13:27                                           ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-08 13:30                                             ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-19  9:24                                               ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-19  9:50                                                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-19 10:59                                                   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-19 11:09                                                     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-07-03 14:34                                                       ` Ferruh Yigit

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E7061153DC6603@SHSMSX105.ccr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
    --cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
    --cc=ktraynor@redhat.com \
    --cc=marko.kovacevic@intel.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=orika@mellanox.com \
    --cc=pbhagavatula@marvell.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox