From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
To: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"pbhagavatula@marvell.com" <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>,
"ferruh.yigit@intel.com" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
"jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"John McNamara" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
"ktraynor@redhat.com" <ktraynor@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: add flow action type update as an offload
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:40:54 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <398f8345-5a8c-738e-6534-57e9ace6aebe@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR05MB34252A069BDF48DCD1F7F5FBDB7E0@AM4PR05MB3425.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
On 11/5/19 7:37 PM, Ori Kam wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 1:31 PM
>> To: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon
>> <thomas@monjalon.net>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; pbhagavatula@marvell.com; ferruh.yigit@intel.com;
>> jerinj@marvell.com; John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>; Marko
>> Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>; Adrien Mazarguil
>> <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>; david.marchand@redhat.com;
>> ktraynor@redhat.com
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: add flow action type update as an
>> offload
>>
>
> [Snip]
>
>>>
>>> Yes but like I said in Mellanox PMD for example we supported the mark only
>> on non-transfer flows until this release.
>>> so when the user set mark on transfer flow it was invalid. (in transfer flow if
>> we have a miss we send the packet back to the Rx
>>> port so the application can understand on which table the miss happened)
>>> In this version we added the support for mark also in transfer (E-Switch)
>> flows.
>>> So my question before this release what should the PMD report? What should
>> the PMD report after this release?
>>>
>>> Your idea was our first thought when adding the Tx meta, in that case the
>> meta was always set in application
>>> so we thought that this offload will enable us better function selection, but as
>> you know we removed this capability
>>> since it is not correct any more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The above also highlights problems of the meta vs mark design. They are
>> very
>>>> similar and there is no any good definition of the difference and rules
>>>> which
>>>> one should be used/supported in which conditions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mark and Meta are exactly the same, the meta is just another value that the
>> application can use.
>>> This is why both should act the same.
>>>
>>> And maybe this is the wining argument, the rte_flow validation approach was
>> used and accepted for the meta.
>>> So lets try it also with the mark. (please also remember that we didn't have
>> this mark until now to somehow the
>>> PMD worked 😊)
>>>
>>> Like I said before, I understand your approach, and each one of them has its
>> own advantages and draw backs.
>>> Lets start using the rte_flow approach and see how it goes, I promise you that
>> if I see that it doesn't scale or cause more
>>> issues I will be first one to submit changes.
>>
>> I tend to say OK, let's try. However, it must be documented
>> in MARK action that if an application wants to use it, a rule
>> with the action must be validated before device start.
>
> I agree to add this to the rte_flow mark action documation.
>
>> PMD may use the attempt as an indication from the application
>> that it would like to use flow mark even if the validation
>> fails.
>
> No if the PMD uses this validation as hint it should return success and
> use the correct PMD.
It would make it too strictly dependent on pattern/actions/state.
>> Ori, please, suggest formalized pattern and actions
>> specification to use if application wants to utilize
>> validation result as a criteria to enable/disable flow
>> marks usage.
>
> I can’t do that, it depends on the application, the most basic is just "pattern eth actions mark / queue" .
> In some cases where you need it for E-Switch if should be something like "transfer items port / eth / actions mark"
If so, what application author should do if even maintainers cannot
formalize it. It sounds like the approach does not work.
>> What should be done if patterns to use and set
>> of actions together with MARK are not known in advance.
>
> I think that the application knows which kind of traffic it expects and which actions it needs.
I'm afraid it is not always true.
>> Andrew.
>
> Ori
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-06 6:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ 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 [this message]
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
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
2021-02-17 13:45 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-02-17 14:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-20 1:05 ` Ferruh Yigit
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=398f8345-5a8c-738e-6534-57e9ace6aebe@solarflare.com \
--to=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.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=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
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).