From: Nithin Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>
To: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>,
"Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>,
Nithin Dabilpuram <nithind1988@gmail.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
"Ori Kam" <orika@mellanox.com>,
"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
"Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
"Kovacevic, Marko" <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>, Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>,
Krzysztof Kanas <kkanas@marvell.com>,
"techboard@dpdk.org" <techboard@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/3] mbuf: add Tx offloads for packet marking
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 16:14:14 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200603104414.GA28936@outlook.office365.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200603082844.GG12564@platinum>
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 10:28:44AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 07:55:37PM +0530, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 10:53:08AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > Hi Jerin,
> > >
> > > > > > > I also share Olivier's concern about consuming 3 bits in ol_flags for that feature.
> > > > > > > Can it probably be squeezed somehow?
> > > > > > > Let say we reserve one flag that this information is present or not, and
> > > > > > > re-use one of rx-only fields for store additional information (packet_type, or so).
> > > > > > > Or might be some other approach.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are fine with this approach where we define one bit in Tx offloads for pkt
> > > > > > marking and and 3 bits reused from Rx offload flags area.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -186,10 +186,16 @@ extern "C" {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* add new RX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_FIRST_FREE */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +/* Reused Rx offload bits for Tx offloads */
> > > > > > +#define PKT_X_TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI (1ULL << 0)
> > > > > > +#define PKT_X_TX_MARK_IP_DSCP (1ULL << 1)
> > > > > > +#define PKT_X_TX_MARK_IP_ECN (1ULL << 2)
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > #define PKT_FIRST_FREE (1ULL << 23)
> > > > > > -#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 40)
> > > > > > +#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 39)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* add new TX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_LAST_FREE */
> > > > > > +#define PKT_TX_MARK_EN (1ULL << 40)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this fine ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Any thoughts on this approach which uses only 1 bit in Tx flags out of 18
> > > > > and reuse unused Rx flag bits ?
> > >
> > > My thought was not about re-defining the flags (I think it is better to keep them intact),
> > > but adding a union for one of rx-only fields (packet_type/rss/timestamp).
> >
> > Ok. Adding a union field at packet_type field is also fine like below.
> >
> > @@ -187,9 +187,10 @@ extern "C" {
> > /* add new RX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_FIRST_FREE */
> >
> > #define PKT_FIRST_FREE (1ULL << 23)
> > -#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 40)
> > +#define PKT_LAST_FREE (1ULL << 39)
> >
> > /* add new TX flags here, don't forget to update PKT_LAST_FREE */
> > +#define PKT_TX_MARK_EN (1ULL << 40)
> >
> > /**
> > * Outer UDP checksum offload flag. This flag is used for enabling
> > @@ -461,6 +462,14 @@ enum {
> > #endif
> > };
> >
> > +/* Tx packet marking flags in rte_mbuf::tx_mark.
> > + * Valid only when PKT_TX_MARK_EN is set in
> > + * rte_mbuf::ol_flags.
> > + */
> > +#define TX_MARK_VLAN_DEI (1ULL << 0)
> > +#define TX_MARK_IP_DSCP (1ULL << 1)
> > +#define TX_MARK_IP_ECN (1ULL << 2)
> > +
> > /**
> > * The generic rte_mbuf, containing a packet mbuf.
> > */
> > @@ -543,6 +552,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
> > };
> > uint32_t inner_l4_type:4; /**< Inner L4 type. */
> > };
> > + struct {
> > + uint32_t reserved:29;
> > + uint32_t tx_mark:3;
> > + };
> > };
> >
> >
> >
> > Please correct me if this is not what you mean.
>
> I'm not a big fan of reusing Rx fields or flags for Tx.
> It's not obvious for an application than adding a tx_mark will overwrite
> the packet_type. I understand that the risk is limited because packet_type
> is Rx and the marks are Tx, but there is still one.
I'm also not a big fan but just wanted to take this approach so that,
it can both conserve space and also help fast path.
Reusing Rx area is however not a new thing as is already followed for
mbuf->txadapter field.
Apart from documentation issue, Is there any other issue or future
ramification with using Rx field's for Tx ?
If it is only about documentation, then we can add more documentation to make things clear.
>
> To summarize the different proposed approaches (please correct me if I'm wrong):
>
> a- add 3 Tx mbuf flags
> (-) consumes limited resource
>
> b- add 3 dynamic flags
> (-) slower
- Tx burst Vector implementation can't be done for this tx offload as
offset keeps changing.
>
> c- add 1 Tx flag and union with Rx field
> (-) exclusive with Rx field
> (-) still consumes one flag
>
> My preference is still b-, for these reasons:
>
> - There are many different DPDK use cases, and resources in mbuf is tight.
> Recent contributions (rte_flow and ice driver) already made use of dynamic
> fields/flags.
- Since RTE_FLOW metadata is 32-bit field, it is a clear candidate for
dynamic flags.
- ICE PMD's dynamic field is however a vendor specific field and only for
ICE PMD users.
In this case, it is just 1 bit out of 18 free bits available in ol_flags.
>
> - When I implemented the dynamic fields/flags feature, I did a test which
> showed that the cost of having a dynamic offset was few cycles (on my test
> platform, it was~3 cycles for reading a field and ~2 cycles for writing a
> field).
I think this cost is of the case where the address where the dyn_offset is
stored is already in cache as it needs to be read first.
>
> Regards,
> Olivier
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > + Techboard
> > > >
> > > > There is a related thread going on
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mails.dpdk.org_archives_dev_2020-2DMay_168810.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=FZ_tPCbgFOh18zwRPO9H0yDx8VW38vuapifdDfc8SFQ&m=nyV4Rud03HW6DbWMpyvOCulQNkagmfo0wKtrwQ7zmmg&s=VuktoUb_xoLsHKdB9mV87x67cP9tXk3DqVXptt9nF_s&e=
> > > >
> > > > If there is no consensus on email, then I would like to add this item
> > > > to the next TB meeting.
> > >
> > > Ok, I'll add that to tomorrow meeting agenda.
> > > Konstantin
> > >
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-03 10:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-17 7:22 [dpdk-dev] " Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-04-17 7:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] net/octeontx2: add tm packet marking cb Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-04-17 7:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] net/octeontx2: add Tx packet marking offload support Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-05-01 11:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] mbuf: add Tx offloads for packet marking Jerin Jacob
2020-05-04 8:06 ` Olivier Matz
2020-05-04 8:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-05-04 9:16 ` Olivier Matz
2020-05-04 10:04 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-05-04 12:27 ` Olivier Matz
2020-05-05 6:19 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-05-13 12:28 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-05-14 20:29 ` Olivier Matz
2020-05-15 10:08 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-05-15 10:30 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-05-15 13:57 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-05-28 15:43 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-05-30 15:12 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-06-02 10:53 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-06-02 14:25 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-06-03 8:28 ` Olivier Matz
2020-06-03 10:44 ` Nithin Dabilpuram [this message]
2020-06-03 11:38 ` Olivier Matz
2020-06-03 12:52 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-06-03 16:14 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2020-06-08 9:39 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-06-03 14:56 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-06-03 10:31 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-05-15 13:12 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-15 13:44 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
2020-05-15 15:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-15 16:26 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-05-15 16:52 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-15 17:00 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-05-15 18:07 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-07-31 12:54 ` [dpdk-dev] " Thomas Monjalon
2023-08-14 8:11 ` Nithin Dabilpuram
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly 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=20200603104414.GA28936@outlook.office365.com \
--to=ndabilpuram@marvell.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
--cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
--cc=kkanas@marvell.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=marko.kovacevic@intel.com \
--cc=nithind1988@gmail.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=orika@mellanox.com \
--cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
--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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).