From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD49A04C1; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:15:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF002AA0; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:15:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291241F5 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:15:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F94F752D; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 06:15:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 22 Nov 2019 06:15:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=oTio1ylga0fVx+0yPyivqI5DYDqtT86yp5SNpw31ou8=; b=WSq//7i7lBhs YLNsOdD0REyVzJpo3BGyl2lwLIjwApEZ94ClAz9qSTxkkjM/8LjdCCPjfnE9X0N2 i+6NUDV/3mjdLAZm9j5sUUoA6yGxFTqboqz4Cdq3JjNJ88+r0tEk2Uik9UQdXD8h wJfwjBso62Xl8bRaP2rraFozXnIyjJo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=oTio1ylga0fVx+0yPyivqI5DYDqtT86yp5SNpw31o u8=; b=Yok8rLt4sN6PiCvx2bpglZuQyRNy3/8mrmgf53nWeicT6S9NTN1txuv4j 7956mKfNV+CNtXy3OhaqV64wEQgXOodPnZH9heP7DIeK2Bm00D6AfUAwJtwwfolq dSBCl6LOaxoL//Bt9otqLVSf+7w0qp5/W0+xNBbg6+9qmTH0vEFzo33f18BnvL8P MTrFQvZQ6Rt4qrT3UaDiZ8XLOEI89IXW6HMyp746s3h82apnpTewkPM7aHO0MqhG 7hvTd2xEX/4SxmI4BvIxRc17m643Ay5N7XPWFEfLD9NhIo0IgUgz++3rGWkh1e3r MN0rE4HA4gn9mP0n4locOxg9RtX3A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudehgedgvdegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuff homhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucfkphepjeejrddvtdehrddukedrfedtnecurfgr rhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuve hluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (30.18.205.77.rev.sfr.net [77.205.18.30]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B6E3F8005B; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 06:15:36 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Andrew Rybchenko Cc: Ferruh Yigit , Pavan Nikhilesh , Neil Horman , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , dev@dpdk.org, orika@mellanox.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, olivier.matz@6wind.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:15:33 +0100 Message-ID: <2061551.U1huFxGPsU@xps> In-Reply-To: <7f1ca296-d4b0-e11b-7a70-50379de831c4@solarflare.com> References: <1574165145-23960-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> <3628380.zSPWDRPf13@xps> <7f1ca296-d4b0-e11b-7a70-50379de831c4@solarflare.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/3] ethdev: improve flow mark Rx offload deprecation notice X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 22/11/2019 11:12, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 11/22/19 1:01 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 19/11/2019 13:12, Andrew Rybchenko: > >> The deprecation notice is required since it adds more requirements > >> when RTE flow mark and flag actions may be used and require > >> changes in applications. > > I am still not sure what is the best solution here. > > I continued to think about it in this thread: > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-November/151960.html > > > > I think we cannot require any application change until 20.11 > > in order to keep API (and behaviour) compatibility. > > Expected, but still very disappointing. > > The feature is implemented by Pavan (@ Marvell), supported by me, > used by Qi (@ Intel), looks better than alternatives from application > developer point of view [1] and finally postponed for 1 year without really > strong motivation. I see different valuable point of views. This is enough motivation. And no, it is not postponed by one year. Next release can implement a new API. > I disagree that it is tightly related to moving > mark/flag to > dynamic field/flag and absolutely blocked by it. Yes, I know that the are > concerns from the very beginning, but the problem is explained [2] and clear > and no full-featured alternative solution is suggested. Solution suggested > by Ori has many significant drawbacks as explained in [2] and highlighted > in further discussion. I disagree with working only on mark action while there are a lot of other configs which have to be implemented in drivers. The reality is that some drivers decided to have some "optimizations" disabling some features, and you want the application to opt-in in order to allow your optimized paths. Note that opt-in is different of really enabling an offload. For some basic port-level features like RSS hash, it is enabled with an offload flag before starting the port, acting as an opt-in. Some features have some dedicated API, which may be enabled after starting the port, and no way to opt-in (or opt-out) before start. A lot of features are using rte_flow API which is in this situation. If we take the opt-in path, let's not do it only for the mark action, but let's create a real API for it: rte_eth_dev_optin() rte_eth_dev_optinall() rte_eth_dev_optoutl() I think the motivation is strong enough. > [1] http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/1573203631946.15959@kth.se/ > [2] > http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/f170105b-9c60-1b04-cb18-52e0951ddcdb@solarflare.com/ > > > If something would be implemented in 20.02, > > it must be a new and optional API. > > Flow mark and flag may work without the offload with some drivers, > but some drivers require the offload to make it work. Flow API error > should contain message which says that the offload is disabled and > must be enabled. Yes, the PMD should return an explicit error about a feature being disabled. How does it impact ethdev API? > > That's why I think no deprecation notice is required. > > > > [...] > >> +* ethdev: New offload flag ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_FLOW_MARK`` will be added in 20.02. > >> + This will provide application an information if ``RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_MARK`` > >> + or ``RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_FLAG`` is supported and, what is more important, > >> + allow an application to let PMD know that it would like to use these > >> + features. > >> + PMD may use the information to choose optimal datapath implementation and > >> + configure HW appropriately to optimize performance and/or resources usage.