From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56EF41B98; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:05:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455B040DFB; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:05:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300004021F for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:05:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56785C012A; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 04:05:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 01 Feb 2023 04:05:03 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1675242303; x= 1675328703; bh=HRNsiSpf9D+c1ZCbqcC1vGXa8BxOjoywgWhxVXlXm8Q=; b=p 797JrzDQyQ0GW9rnbODx1pR6t4Ud4YB3rsAxZrJrrMN60EouHwgVcoKavkEeG4VG i7rMUsvchBaX5FBijuky937mBFg4I3NEjuBMpkDuRvMpEKK6nABYi8XNQ6fdGZna 6rf72hZgLK14ePSyEyJtOcJV8XppIUgVyESayYBdAHyDVDUNwWG3OZhx1HVW91HL i93HGLFeFWjW/lfKtE0VUkvWmgurSGxNOkHJ+kDWF90zTKKVjugpMxlpkfLcDUEa W3qzXNieYMGV05CUaXFz0KgjB8Fu5kf/swk28A6yv6Z44linHChpTLz+WNvJ3l6l C7gM+Erok6aQocazN4Lqg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1675242303; x= 1675328703; bh=HRNsiSpf9D+c1ZCbqcC1vGXa8BxOjoywgWhxVXlXm8Q=; b=J ccOdbDemNydPiOSct88wH3GHdM+K7h2unQ+IPbmrEpQgtKq2PMyLI+sFE8JVMo51 JfFTxF0nZbs8ftIBJrZF88r3H4os6cuk1V3aqFJx3hYW7WZvQ0xo/3J8tw3crQC9 ncraeRDzzqTnaQxdfu5ODYTq2TV8oI5o9LQnrIpngQ4uyfAdBO5vIXN7nX1qSbk6 d8E4E09lEzd+m0CrBoVfIuNsTGK12cmlbjo6suNbmzNu77i+QHB1x4WTZvszTJCo /zCLpnM+9iNG4m1f33ItOr2WjxZELhSdN9I6OjbuedU+egJ/lKHjAuq+Bi83YdIU XkDAXhVzRgvrSNz5IEO4A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudefiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurf hrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcu ofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnheptdejieeifeehtdffgfdvleetueeffeehueejgfeuteeftddtieekgfek udehtdfgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 04:05:01 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jerin Jacob , Andrew Rybchenko , Ori Kam Cc: Ivan Malov , Ivan Malov , Ferruh Yigit , Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram , Aman Singh , Yuying Zhang , "dev@dpdk.org" , Hanumanth Reddy Pothula , Slava Ovsiienko , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , "david.marchand@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] app/testpmd: add command to process Rx metadata negotiation Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 10:05:00 +0100 Message-ID: <3180381.AJdgDx1Vlc@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20221220200250.2413443-1-hpothula@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 01/02/2023 10:00, Ori Kam: > Hi all, > > Sorry for jumping in late, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerin Jacob > > Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2023 10:53 > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 12:46 PM Andrew Rybchenko > > wrote: > > > > > > On 2/1/23 09:10, Ivan Malov wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > Since making automatic, or implicit, offload decisions does > > > > not belong in testpmd responsibility domain, it should be > > > > safer to avoid calling the "negotiate metadata delivery" > > > > API with some default selection unless the user asks to > > > > do so explicitly, via internal CLI or app options. > > > > > > > > With that in mind, port config ... sounds OK. > > > > > > > > PMDs that support flow primitives which can generate metadata > > > > but, if in started state, can't enable its delivery may pass > > > > appropriate rte_error messages to the user suggesting > > > > they enable delivery of such metadata from NIC to PMD > > > > first. This way, if the person operating testpmd > > > > enters a flow create command and that fails, > > > > they can figure out the inconsistency, stop > > > > the port, negotiate, start and try again. > > > > > > > > As for non-debug applications, their developers shall > > > > be properly informed about the problem of enabling > > > > delivery of metadata from NIC to PMD. This way, > > > > they will invoke the negotiate API by default > > > > in their apps, with the feature selection (eg. > > > > MARK) as per nature of the app's business. > > > > > > > > This API should indeed be helpful to some PMDs with > > > > regard to collecting upfront knowledge like this. > > > > At the same time, should be benign to those PMDs > > > > who do not need this knowledge and can enable > > > > delivery of metadata right when inserting the > > > > flow rules. So I hope the API does not create > > > > too much discomfort to vendors not needing it. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > >> 31/01/2023 17:17, Jerin Jacob: > > > >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 8:31 PM Thomas Monjalon > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 27/01/2023 11:42, Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram: > > > >>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon > > > >>>>>> 27/01/2023 06:02, Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram: > > > >>>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon > > > >>>>>>>> Ferruh is proposing to have a command "port config > > ..." > > > >>>>>>>> to configure the flags to negotiate. > > > >>>>>>>> Are you OK with this approach? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Yes, we are fine to have such command to enable and disable the > > > >>>>>>> feature > > > >>>>>>> with default being it disabled if supported by PMD. > > > >>>>>>> Is default being disabled fine if the feature is supported by a > > > >>>>>>> PMD ? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I think the default should be enabled for ease of use. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Since testpmd is used extensively for benchmarking purposes, we > > > >>>>> thought it should have minimum features > > > >>>>> enabled by default. The default testpmd doesn't have any Rx/Tx > > > >>>>> offloads enabled(except for FAST FREE), default > > > >>>>> fwd mode being "iofwd" and the Rx metadata is only referenced > > when > > > >>>>> dumping packets. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Do we have similar features disables by default? > > > >>>>>> I mean do we know features in testpmd which require a "double > > > >>>>>> enablement" > > > >>>>>> like one configuration command + one rte_flow rule? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Spec itself is that way i.e "RTE_FLOW_RULE + > > > >>>>> RX_METADATA_NEGOTIATE(once)" > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Isn't it enough if > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> #1 We have enough print when rte_flow is being create without > > > >>>>> negotiation done and ask user to enable rx metadata using > > > >>>>> "port config ..." > > > >>>>> #2 Provide testpmd app arg to enable Rx metadata(for example " > > > >>>>> --rx-metadata") like other features to avoid calling another > > > >>>>> command before rte flow create. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'm not sure what is best. > > > >>>> I will let others discuss this part. > > > >>> > > > >>> IMO, enabling something always defeat the purpose to negotiate. IMO, > > > >>> someone needs to negotiate > > > >>> for a feature if the feature is needed. I think, the double enablement > > > >>> is part of the spec itself. In case, The PMD > > > >>> drivers won't like double enablement, no need to implement the PMD > > > >>> callback. That way, there is no change in the existing flow. > > > >>> > > > >>> The reason why cnxk driver thought of leveraging negotiate() feature > > > >>> so that it helps for optimization. e.s.p > > > >>> function template for multiprocess case as we know what features > > > >>> needed in fastpath upfront. > > > >>> > > > >>> If there still concerns with patch we can take up this to TB decide > > > >>> one way or another to make forward progress. Let us know. > > > >> > > > >> Ferruh, Andrew, Ori, Ivan, what is your opinion? > > > >> Let's progress with this patch to make it in -rc1. > > > > > > As I understand all agreed that we need testpmd command to > > > control negotiated Rx metadata. May be even command-line > > > option would be useful. > > > > > > So, remaining question is what should be the default value in > > > testpmd. Note that it is just testpmd question since default > > > value in an abstract application is nothing negotiated > > > (if I'm not mistaken). > > > > > > The key advantaan ge of the current behaviour is to avoid > > > "double-enabling" in testpmd. It preserves behaviour which > > > we had before before the API addition. It is a strong > > > argument. Basically it puts the feature into the same > > > basket as FAST_FREE - need an action to run faster. > > > > I think, there is a disconnect here. FAST_FREE is enabled by default. > > i.e We don't need any specific action to run faster. To align with performance > > test application, by default the configuration should be run faster. User > > needs to give explicit configuration to allow more offload or the one causes > > the mpps drops. IMO, That is the theme followed in testpmd. > > > > > I agree with Andrew, the default should stay the same, as now, PMD may already implement > logic to only enable the feature if there is a flow rule. > Changing the default will result in breaking applications. That's not what is discussed here. We are talking only about testpmd default. > I want to suggest new approach for this feature, > maybe we can use the rte_flow_configure, and add a new bit that says if those > actions are going to be used. > What do you think? Let's not change the API please. > > > I see no problem in such approach. > > > > > > The key disadvantage is the difference in testpmd and > > > other applications default behaviour. > > > > > > I'd look at the feature in the following way: > > > if an application theoretically wants to use > > > USER_FLAG, USER_MARK or TUNNEL_ID it must negotiate > > > corresponding Rx metadata to ensure that the feature is > > > available and HW is informed that application may need it. > > > Since testpmd supports corresponding flow API actions and > > > flow tunnels, it tries to negotiate it by default, but do > > > not fail if the negotiation fails. > > > > > > So, I'd would vote to keeping the default value as is. > > > >