From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com
[209.85.212.177]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37571594F
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:25:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id l15so4014269wiw.4
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:35:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization
:user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version
:content-transfer-encoding:content-type;
bh=zEChL+SCAodpkzZmt1nq1/t7JVinz0YLbLRXFYEDgFY=;
b=ANSpRjIQ+SGLwRj0WwCjbXp0oKcKAVMUkqex7icFNm/593zye0cLUU5RC6fo0jSdWh
+YeB81lxQVBi2ldwe+/mQrShLgGNuG/QjSVdtzY8Gub+4XrmvhKFK3MnDv8jZLL76nop
Y/U3xNs0nWSOrvmSEaqzHYAeKz1SBR0U4gWvMIhrwPEpMaIyPYpBcXjNb2vCKvEyOAv5
ZTLdOsixlwrYAcddj9od9GZU5VQX55iPa3WY2ZoO7qfU8BB2SMSLG4H7d3Xi5nNzHRDK
IFlcV2LFnFs27cHgHILpiTaps4HQsTblDuYT4EgRgGaYLaxXyhpMZSmgW03dhqACaHCa
5fZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmPpdjDxQm4pqu1V3fTJDfV/cEcqXs6BnAwy5bwvY+s9j9BjoHvh6pEuDLKt4OJaii8B/m9
X-Received: by 10.180.19.164 with SMTP id g4mr2892399wie.51.1415878533623;
Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mw7sm25368388wib.14.2014.11.13.03.35.32
for <multiple recipients>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:35:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "Liu, Jijiang" <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:35:15 +0100
Message-ID: <5619154.Lqn3vQe6j1@xps13>
Organization: 6WIND
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.2 (Linux/3.17.2-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01D9A425@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1413881168-20239-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
<6349776.LhCYQBaBlF@xps13>
<1ED644BD7E0A5F4091CF203DAFB8E4CC01D9A425@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/9] librte_mbuf:the rte_mbuf structure
changes
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:25:35 -0000
2014-11-13 11:24, Liu, Jijiang:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > 2014-11-13 03:17, Liu, Jijiang:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > > 2014-10-23 02:23, Zhang, Helin:
> > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
> > > > > Monjalon
> > > > > > 2014-10-21 14:14, Liu, Jijiang:
> > > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > > > > > > 2014-10-21 16:46, Jijiang Liu:
> > > > > > > > > + uint16_t packet_type;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why not name it "l2_type"?
> > > > >
> > > > > 'packet_type' is for storing the hardware identified packet type
> > > > > upon different layers of protocols (l2, l3, l4, ...).
> > > > > It is quite useful for user application or middle layer software
> > > > > stacks, it can know what the packet type is without checking the
> > > > > packet too
> > > > much by software.
> > > > > Actually ixgbe already has packet types (less than 10), which is
> > > > > transcoded into
> > > > 'ol_flags'.
> > > > > For i40e, the packet type can represent about 256 types of packet,
> > > > > 'ol_flags' does not have enough bits for it anymore. So put the
> > > > > i40e packet types
> > > > into mbuf would be better.
> > > > > Also this field can be used for NON-Intel NICs, I think there must
> > > > > be the similar concepts of other NICs. And 16 bits 'packet_type'
> > > > > has severl
> > > > reserved bits for future and NON-Intel NICs.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Helin, that's the best description of packet_type I've seen so far.
> > > > It's not so clear in the commit log:
> > > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=73b7d59cf4f6faf
> > > >
> > > > > > > In datasheet, this term is called packet type(s).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's exactly the point I want you really understand!
> > > > > > This is a field in generic mbuf structure, so your datasheet has no value here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Personally , I think packet type is more clear what meaning of this field is .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You cannot add an API field without knowing what will be its generic meaning.
> > > > > > Please think about it and describe its scope.
> > > >
> > > > I integrated this patch with the VXLAN patchset in the hope that
> > > > you'll improve the situation afterwards.
> > > > This is the answer you recently gave to Olivier:
> > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/007599.html
> > > > "
> > > > Regarding adding a packet_type in mbuf, we ever had a lot of
> > > > discussions as follows:
> > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-October/007027.html
> > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-September/005240.html
> > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-September/005241.html
> > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-September/005274.html
> > > > "
> > > >
> > > > To sum up the situation:
> > > > - We don't know what are the possible values of packet_type
> > > > - It's only filled by i40e, while other drivers use ol_flags
> > > > - There is no special value "unknown" which should be set by drivers
> > > > not supporting this feature.
> > > > - Its only usage is to print a decimal value in
> > > > app/test-pmd/rxonly.c
> > > >
> > > > It's now clear that nobody cares about this part of the API.
> > > > So I'm going to remove packet_type from mbuf.
> > > > I don't want to keep something that we don't know how to use, that
> > > > is not consistent across drivers, and that overlap another API part (ol_flags).
> > >
> > > The packet type in 40e is very important for user, using packet type
> > > can help to speed up packet analysis/identification in their
> > > application, especially tunneling packet format.
> > > Now I'm working on implementing packet type definition in rte_ethdev.h
> > > file and translation table in i40e, which is almost done.
> > > The packet type definition in in rte_ethdev.h file like below.
> > > /*
> > > * Ethernet packet type
> > > */
> > > enum rte_eth_ptype {
> > > /* undefined packet type, means HW can't recognise it */
> > > RTE_PTYPE_UNDEF = 0,
> > > ...
> > >
> > > /* IPv4 --> GRE/Teredo/VXLAN --> MAC --> IPv4 */
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv4FRAG_PAY3,
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv4_PAY3,
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv4_UDP_PAY4,
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv4_TCP_PAY4,
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv4_SCTP_PAY4,
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv4_ICMP_PAY4,
> > >
> > > /* IPv4 --> GRE/Teredo/VXLAN --> MAC --> IPv6 */
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv6FRAG_PAY3
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv6_PAY3,
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv6_UDP_PAY4,
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv6_TCP_PAY4,
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv6_SCTP_PAY4,
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MAC_IPv6_ICMP_PAY4,
> > >
> > > /* IPv4 --> GRE/Teredo/VXLAN --> MAC/VLAN */
> > > RTE_PTYPE_IPv4_GRENAT_MACVLAN_PAY3,
> > > ...
> > > }
> >
> > OK, it seems well abstracted.
> > I think the last part of these names (PAY3/PAY4) is useless.
> >
> > When this patch for API and i40e will be ready?
> > I'd prefer fixing the API instead of removing it.
>
> If needed, next week, I can send a patch for this.
>
> > > Yes, we don't use packet type in many places now, which doesn't mean
> > > we don't use it in the future (when supporting another tunneling packet).
> > >
> > > It is ok for me if you want to remove the packet_type filed in mbuf,
> > > but we will send a separate patch set for introducing packet type in
> > > the future, which includes 1g/10/40g PMD changes.
> >
> > When the patches for igb/ixgbe will be ready?
>
> We need some time to investigate this for igb/ixgbe, probably some
> example codes and test application codes need to changed.
> You can assume that it cannot be done in DPDK1.8.
>
> So here are my three suggestions:
>
> 1. keep packet_type in mbuf and wait for all the igb/ixgb/i40e changes
> done in DPDK2.0. Now, I don't send a separate patch set for it.
> 2. keep packet_type in mbuf, I just send i40e patch set for this in
> DPDK1.8. In DPDK2.0, we will send a patch set for igb/ixgbe.
> 3. It can be removed now, and we will send a separate patch set for
> introducing packet type in the future.
Option 2 please :)
My main concerns are:
- clearly document it
- have hardware abstraction
Thanks
--
Thomas