From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com> Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4932E2C2F for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 17 May 2017 18:38:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 70so16747384wmq.1 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 17 May 2017 09:38:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=4RRUdyb41VtuqGiNLOyJ76KZ+ULh8JopnVe2ivyJiiE=; b=TLYmRkcoow5IJ8lbjtaDsj4h4dLuliqTCDQZOCAbbm89KCaa5RFp4fu4obhgQZQQWA DgeUTsEKbxNaXC4Cp9FKRb2AAdn1ARdVigMbr0MolKalWTnJMBIvk/gSGBYNHOlNaeRH A9noUsu2NIFPaCqdvg2UGYt+Zkelox4Tqi2IlNTcZoao+ptclnDqyDmZEtSlUSGhat5e Np6e7q6lJG3gOSE7rqeITN0yvlt4B7dY/HLfU0kJMc6yvI1ygaqFugkmzfBCczDT0ovl /okNeVfauqBvjP8mW+8Fs5EOL2CDU97FWubWy8ikIDBA7T6zEnHIhaonIz7XTWyhdyyy Zang== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=4RRUdyb41VtuqGiNLOyJ76KZ+ULh8JopnVe2ivyJiiE=; b=kGZT3KG4ZEmU8xje/hq6aMOqbQ2Y+lbqSkWjvhBZebnqh4buQ2mTtYNCkeuFwknt/h 1oHbEhP+6c8XwUZy921fi6O/kZd/zyY+u27q71ZOyOepVy2/PYF1qCy6+RtzbMLhwL+y kQ3mdjITzB3WpsdtfNjLz6KddMPrC4+zfFTf6x0iiBUfN7E1fnbvB+maOWoD6Lklcknt ZIZM0BbkYWpW9jb9Mi2A3pTZrIcTHDcSSoHcT1FvE3o14oybixDlkPqvC5rkSeM6glBb EZPzvxlskn5bZgUM5on6q/EzvWXQmsJw/yZ8dUCxsxC9yyoWl/6EuzFWIlpxRES2tVy0 bl8w== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCBNQcdlhF21It+siX0qtVycPWIjc3R1y3om7uqSV5F57kNUs1n bZbS3mVH3zffEyxX X-Received: by 10.28.31.16 with SMTP id f16mr11039916wmf.118.1495039134871; Wed, 17 May 2017 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bidouze.vm.6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l45sm2071828wre.2.2017.05.17.09.38.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 May 2017 09:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 18:38:48 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>, "Tahhan, Maryam" <maryam.tahhan@intel.com> Message-ID: <20170517163848.GQ14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> References: <20170420185448.19162-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170420185448.19162-2-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAF774A@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <64f62140-86d9-22e8-6605-487da657a4f4@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <64f62140-86d9-22e8-6605-487da657a4f4@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classify library X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 16:38:55 -0000 Hi Ferruh, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:02:50PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >On 5/17/2017 3:54 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >> Hi Ferruh, >> Please see my comments/questions below. > >Thanks for review. > >> Thanks >> Konstantin > ><...> > >> I think it was discussed already, but I still wonder why rte_flow_item can't be used for that approach? > >Missed this one: > >Gaëtan also had same comment, copy-paste from other mail related to my >concerns using rte_flow: > >" >rte_flow is to create flow rules in PMD level, but what this library >aims to collect flow information, independent from if underlying PMD >implemented rte_flow or not. > >So issues with using rte_flow for this use case: >1- It may not be implemented for all PMDs (including virtual ones). >2- It may conflict with other rte_flow rules created by user. >3- It may not gather all information required. (I mean some actions >here, count like ones are easy but rte_flow may not be so flexible to >extract different metrics from flows) >" There are two separate elements to using rte_flow in this context I think. One is the use of the existing actions, and as you say, this makes the support of this library dependent on the rte_flow support in PMDs. The other is the expression of flows through a shared syntax. Using flags to propose presets can be simpler, but will probably not be flexible enough. rte_flow_items are a first-class citizen in DPDK and are already a data type that can express flows with flexibility. As mentioned, they are however missing a few elements to fully cover IPFIX meters, but nothing that cannot be added I think. So I was probably not clear enough, but I was thinking about supporting rte_flow_items in rte_flow_classify as the possible key applications would use to configure their measurements. This should not require rte_flow supports from the PMDs they would be using, only rte_flow_item parsing from the rte_flow_classify library. Otherwise, DPDK will probably end up with two competing flow representations. Additionally, it may be interesting for applications to bind these data directly to rte_flow actions once the classification has been analyzed. -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND