Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ethdev: extend flow metadata

[Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>]

Hi Olivier,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 12:23
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Raslan
> Darawsheh <rasland@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ethdev: extend flow metadata
>
> Hi Slava,
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:49:41AM +0000, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> > Hi, Olivier
> >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > > +int
> > > > > > +rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register(void)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +   int offset;
> > > > > > +   int flag;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +   static const struct rte_mbuf_dynfield desc_offs = {
> > > > > > +           .name = MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_NAME,
> > > > > > +           .size = MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_SIZE,
> > > > > > +           .align = MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_ALIGN,
> > > > > > +           .flags = MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_FLAGS,
> > > > > > +   };
> > > > > > +   static const struct rte_mbuf_dynflag desc_flag = {
> > > > > > +           .name = MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_NAME,
> > > > > > +   };
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see think we need #defines.
> > > > > You can directly use the name, sizeof() and __alignof__() here.
> > > > > If the information is used externally, the structure shall be
> > > > > made global non- static.
> > > >
> > > > The intention was to gather all dynamic fields definitions in one
> > > > place (in rte_mbuf_dyn.h).
> > >
> > > If the dynamic field is only going to be used inside rte_flow, I
> > > think there is no need to expose it in rte_mbuf_dyn.h.
> > > The other reason is I think the #define are just "passthrough", and
> > > do not really bring added value, just an indirection.
> > >
> > > > It would be easy to see all fields in one sight (some might be
> > > > shared, some might be mutual exclusive, estimate mbuf space,
> > > > required by various features, etc.). So, we can't just fill
> > > > structure fields with simple sizeof() and alignof() instead of
> > > > definitions (the field parameters must be defined once).
> > > >
> > > > I do not see the reasons to make table global. I would prefer the
> > > definitions.
> > > > - the definitions are compile time processing (table fields are
> > > > runtime), it provides code optimization and better performance.
> > >
> > > There is indeed no need to make the table global if the field is
> > > private to rte_flow. About better performance, my understanding is
> > > that it would only impact registration, am I missing something?
> >
> > OK, I thought about some opportunity to allow application to register
> > field directly, bypassing rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register(). So either
> > definitions or field description table was supposed to be global.
> > I agree, let's do not complicate the matter, I'll will make global the
> > metadata field name definition only - in the rte_mbuf_dyn.h in order
> > just to have some centralizing point.
>
> By reading your mail, things are also clearer to me about which parts need
> access to this field.
>
> To summarize what I understand:
> - dyn field registration is done in rte_flow lib when configuring
>   a flow using META
> - the dynamic field will never be get/set in a mbuf by a PMD or rte_flow
>   before a flow using META is added

In testpmd with current patch - yes, and this is just a sample. The common practice of
enabling metadata may differ. If application sees some PMD supporting RX/TX_METADATA
offload and it desires to receive metadata - it registers the dynamic field for ones.

> One question then: why would you need the dyn field name to be exported?
> Does the PMD need to know if the field is registered with a lookup or
> something like that? If yes, can you detail why?

I think it might happen the PMD does.
Right now I have an issue with mlx5 PMD compiled as shared library.
The global variables from rte_flow.c is not seen in PMD (just because I forget
to add one into the .map file). The way dynamic data are linked is system
dependent and it might be needed to optimize. I mean - in some
cases PMD might need to do lookup explicitly and use local copies
of offset and mask. So' I'd prefer to see field descriptor be
global visible. Yes, PMD can take the offset/flag directly
from the rte_flow variables and cache ones internally,
so global descriptor is just some kind of insurance.

As for the name - it is less critical, it may
be just useful for various log/debug messages and so on. The other
reason to have name definition is to put it in the "centralizing point"
somewhere in the rte_mbuf_dyn.h, to gather all names together and
eliminate the name conflicts (yes,  the documented name convention
reduces the risk, but it just convenient to see all fields names
within one sight - it is easy to determine which are supported, etc).

> >
> > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +   offset = rte_mbuf_dynfield_register(&desc_offs);
> > > > > > +   if (offset < 0)
> > > > > > +           goto error;
> > > > > > +   flag = rte_mbuf_dynflag_register(&desc_flag);
> > > > > > +   if (flag < 0)
> > > > > > +           goto error;
> > > > > > +   rte_flow_dynf_metadata_offs = offset;
> > > > > > +   rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask = (1ULL << flag);
> > > > > > +   return 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +error:
> > > > > > +   rte_flow_dynf_metadata_offs = -1;
> > > > > > +   rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask = 0ULL;
> > > > > > +   return -rte_errno;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  static int
> > > > > >  flow_err(uint16_t port_id, int ret, struct rte_flow_error
> > > > > > *error) { diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > > > > b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h index 391a44a..a27e619 100644
> > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > > > > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@
> > > > > >  #include <rte_udp.h>
> > > > > >  #include <rte_byteorder.h>
> > > > > >  #include <rte_esp.h>
> > > > > > +#include <rte_mbuf.h>
> > > > > > +#include <rte_mbuf_dyn.h>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  #ifdef __cplusplus
> > > > > >  extern "C" {
> > > > > > @@ -417,7 +419,8 @@ enum rte_flow_item_type {
> > > > > >     /**
> > > > > >      * [META]
> > > > > >      *
> > > > > > -    * Matches a metadata value specified in mbuf metadata
> field.
> > > > > > +    * Matches a metadata value.
> > > > > > +    *
> > > > > >      * See struct rte_flow_item_meta.
> > > > > >      */
> > > > > >     RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META,
> > > > > > @@ -1213,9 +1216,17 @@ struct
> > > rte_flow_item_icmp6_nd_opt_tla_eth {
> > > > > > #endif
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  /**
> > > > > > - * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META.
> > > > > > + * @warning
> > > > > > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior
> > > > > > + notice
> > > > > >   *
> > > > > > - * Matches a specified metadata value.
> > > > > > + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * Matches a specified metadata value. On egress, metadata
> > > > > > + can be set either by
> > > > > > + * mbuf tx_metadata field with PKT_TX_METADATA flag or
> > > > > > + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SET_META. On ingress,
> > > > > > + RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SET_META sets
> > > > > > + * metadata for a packet and the metadata will be reported
> > > > > > + via mbuf metadata
> > > > > > + * dynamic field with PKT_RX_DYNF_METADATA flag. The dynamic
> > > mbuf
> > > > > > + field must be
> > > > > > + * registered in advance by rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register().
> > > > > >   */
> > > > > >  struct rte_flow_item_meta {
> > > > > >     rte_be32_t data;
> > > > > > @@ -1813,6 +1824,13 @@ enum rte_flow_action_type {
> > > > > >      * undefined behavior.
> > > > > >      */
> > > > > >     RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_DEC_TCP_ACK,
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +   /**
> > > > > > +    * Set metadata on ingress or egress path.
> > > > > > +    *
> > > > > > +    * See struct rte_flow_action_set_meta.
> > > > > > +    */
> > > > > > +   RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SET_META,
> > > > > >  };
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  /**
> > > > > > @@ -2300,6 +2318,43 @@ struct rte_flow_action_set_mac {
> > > > > >     uint8_t mac_addr[RTE_ETHER_ADDR_LEN];  };
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * @warning
> > > > > > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior
> > > > > > +notice
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SET_META
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * Set metadata. Metadata set by mbuf tx_metadata field with
> > > > > > + * PKT_TX_METADATA flag on egress will be overridden by this
> action.
> > > > > > +On
> > > > > > + * ingress, the metadata will be carried by mbuf metadata
> > > > > > +dynamic field
> > > > > > + * with PKT_RX_DYNF_METADATA flag if set.  The dynamic mbuf
> > > > > > +field must be
> > > > > > + * registered in advance by rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register().
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * Altering partial bits is supported with mask. For bits
> > > > > > +which have never
> > > > > > + * been set, unpredictable value will be seen depending on
> > > > > > +driver
> > > > > > + * implementation. For loopback/hairpin packet, metadata set
> > > > > > +on Rx/Tx may
> > > > > > + * or may not be propagated to the other path depending on HW
> > > > > capability.
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META matches metadata.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +struct rte_flow_action_set_meta {
> > > > > > +   rte_be32_t data;
> > > > > > +   rte_be32_t mask;
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/* Mbuf dynamic field offset for metadata. */ extern int
> > > > > > +rte_flow_dynf_metadata_offs;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/* Mbuf dynamic field flag mask for metadata. */ extern
> > > > > > +uint64_t rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/* Mbuf dynamic field pointer for metadata. */ #define
> > > > > > +RTE_FLOW_DYNF_METADATA(m) \
> > > > > > +   RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD((m), rte_flow_dynf_metadata_offs,
> uint32_t
> > > > > *)
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/* Mbuf dynamic flag for metadata. */ #define
> > > > > > +PKT_RX_DYNF_METADATA
> > > > > > +(rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask)
> > > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder if helpers like this wouldn't be better, because they
> > > > > combine the flag and the field:
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > >  * Set metadata dynamic field and flag in mbuf.
> > > > >  *
> > > > >  * rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register() must have been called first.
> > > > >  */
> > > > > __rte_experimental
> > > > > static inline void rte_mbuf_dyn_metadata_set(struct rte_mbuf *m,
> > > > >                                        uint32_t metadata) {
> > > > >        *RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD(m, rte_flow_dynf_metadata_offs,
> > > > >                        uint32_t *) = metadata;
> > > > >        m->ol_flags |= rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask; }
> > > > Setting flag looks redundantly.
> > > > What if driver just replaces the metadata and flag is already set?
> > > > The other option - the flags (for set of fields) might be set in
> combinations.
> > > > mbuf field is supposed to be engaged in datapath, performance is
> > > > very critical, adding one more abstraction layer seems not to be
> relevant.
> > >
> > > Ok, that was just a suggestion. Let's use your accessors if you fear
> > > a performance impact.
> > The simple example - mlx5 PMD has the rx_burst routine implemented
> > with vector instructions, and it processes four packets at once. No
> > need to check field availability four times, and the storing the
> > metadata is the subject for further optimization with vector instructions.
> > It is a bit difficult to provide common helpers to handle the metadata
> > field due to extremely high optimization requirements.
>
> ok, got it
>
> > > Nevertheless I suggest to use static inline functions in place of
> > > macros if possible. For RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD(), I used a macro because
> > > it's the only way to provide a type to cast the result. But in your
> > > case, you know it's a uint32_t *.
> > What If one needs to specify the address of field? Macro allows to do
> > that, inline functions - do not. Packets may be processed in bizarre
> > ways, for example in a batch, with vector instructions. OK, I'll
> > provide the set/get routines, but I'm not sure whether will use ones in mlx5
> code.
> > In my opinion it just obscures the field nature. Field is just a
> > field, AFAIU, it is main idea of your patch, the way to handle dynamic
> > field should be close to handling usual static fields, I think. Macro
> > pointer follows this approach, routines - does not.
>
> Well, I just think that:
>   rte_mbuf_set_time_stamp(m, 1234);
> is more readable than:
>   *RTE_MBUF_TIMESTAMP(m) = 1234;

I implemented these metadata set/get in v3, as you proposed.
But, mlx5 PMD does not use these ones (possible, I'll refactor some occurrences)
BTW, I did not find any rte_mbuf_set_xxxx() implemented? Did I miss smth?
Should we start with metadata field specifically? 😊

>
> Anyway, in your case, if you need to use vector instructions in the PMD, I
> guess you will directly use the offset.

Right.

>
> > > > Also, metadata is not feature of mbuf. It should have rte_flow prefix.
> > >
> > > Yes, sure. The example derives from a test I've done, and I forgot
> > > to change it.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > >  * Get metadata dynamic field value in mbuf.
> > > > >  *
> > > > >  * rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register() must have been called first.
> > > > >  */
> > > > > __rte_experimental
> > > > > static inline int rte_mbuf_dyn_metadata_get(const struct rte_mbuf
> *m,
> > > > >                                        uint32_t *metadata) {
> > > > >        if ((m->ol_flags & rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask) == 0)
> > > > >                return -1;
> > > > What if metadata is 0xFFFFFFFF ?
> > > > The checking of availability might embrace larger code block, so
> > > > this might be not the best place to check availability.
> > > >
> > > > >        *metadata = *RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD(m,
> > > rte_flow_dynf_metadata_offs,
> > > > >                                uint32_t *);
> > > > >        return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > >  * Delete the metadata dynamic flag in mbuf.
> > > > >  *
> > > > >  * rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register() must have been called first.
> > > > >  */
> > > > > __rte_experimental
> > > > > static inline void rte_mbuf_dyn_metadata_del(struct rte_mbuf *m) {
> > > > >        m->ol_flags &= ~rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask; }
> > > > >
> > > > Sorry, I do not see the practical usecase for these helpers. In my
> > > > opinion it
> > > is just some kind of obscuration.
> > > > They do replace the very simple code and introduce some risk of
> > > performance impact.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >  /*
> > > > > >   * Definition of a single action.
> > > > > >   *
> > > > > > @@ -2533,6 +2588,32 @@ enum rte_flow_conv_op {  };
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  /**
> > > > > > + * Check if mbuf dynamic field for metadata is registered.
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * @return
> > > > > > + *   True if registered, false otherwise.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +__rte_experimental
> > > > > > +static inline int
> > > > > > +rte_flow_dynf_metadata_avail(void) {
> > > > > > +   return !!rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask; }
> > > > >
> > > > > _registered() instead of _avail() ?
> > > > Accepted, sounds better.
> >
> > Hmm, I changed my opinion - we already have
> > rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register(void). Is it OK to have
> > rte_flow_dynf_metadata_registerED(void) ?
> > It would be easy to mistype.
>
> what about xxx_is_registered() ?
It seems to be not much better, sorry ☹
> if you feel it's too long, ok, let's keep avail()
Actually, I tend to complete with "_available", but it is really long.

> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * Register mbuf dynamic field and flag for metadata.
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * This function must be called prior to use SET_META action
> > > > > > +in order to
> > > > > > + * register the dynamic mbuf field. Otherwise, the data
> > > > > > +cannot be delivered to
> > > > > > + * application.
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * @return
> > > > > > + *   0 on success, a negative errno value otherwise and rte_errno is
> > > set.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +__rte_experimental
> > > > > > +int
> > > > > > +rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register(void);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > >   * Check whether a flow rule can be created on a given port.
> > > > > >   *
> > > > > >   * The flow rule is validated for correctness and whether it
> > > > > > could be accepted diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.h
> > > > > > b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.h index 6e2c816..4ff33ac 100644
> > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.h
> > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.h
> > > > > > @@ -160,4 +160,12 @@ int rte_mbuf_dynflag_lookup(const char
> > > *name,
> > > > > >   */
> > > > > >  #define RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD(m, offset, type)
> > > > > > ((type)((uintptr_t)(m)
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > (offset)))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * Flow metadata dynamic field definitions.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +#define MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_NAME "flow-metadata"
> > > > > > +#define MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_SIZE sizeof(uint32_t) #define
> > > > > > +MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_ALIGN __alignof__(uint32_t) #define
> > > > > > +MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_FLAGS 0
> > > > >
> > > > > If this flag is only to be used in rte_flow, it can stay in rte_flow.
> > > > > The name should follow the function name conventions, I suggest
> > > > > "rte_flow_metadata".
> > > >
> > > > The definitions:
> > > > MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_NAME,
> > > > MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_SIZE,
> > > > MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_ALIGN
> > > > are global. rte_flow proposes only minimal set tyo check and
> > > > access the metadata. By knowing the field names applications would
> > > > have the more flexibility in processing the fields, for example it
> > > > allows to optimize the handling of multiple dynamic fields . The
> > > > definition of metadata size allows to generate optimized code:
> > > > #if MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_SIZE == sizeof(uint32)
> > > >         *RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD(m) = get_metadata_32bit() #else
> > > >         *RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD(m) = get_metadata_64bit() #endif
> > >
> > > I don't see any reason why the same dynamic field could have
> > > different sizes, I even think it could be dangerous. Your accessors
> > > suppose that the metadata is a uint32_t. Having a compile-time
> > > option for that does not look desirable.
> >
> > I tried to provide maximal flexibility and It was just an example of
> > the thing we could do with global definitions. If you think we do not
> > need it - OK, let's do things simpler.
> >
> > >
> > > Just a side note: we have to take care when adding a new *public*
> > > dynamic field that it won't change in the future: the accessors are
> > > macros or static inline functions, so they are embedded in the binaries.
> > > This is probably something we should discuss and may not be when
> > > updating the dpdk (as shared lib).
> >
> > Yes, agree, defines just will not work correct in correct way and even break
> an ABI.
> > As we decided - global metadata defines MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_xxxx
> should
> > be removed.
> >
> > >
> > > > MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_FLAGS flag is not used by rte_flow, this flag
> > > > is related exclusively to dynamic mbuf  " Reserved for future use, must
> be 0".
> > > > Would you like to drop this definition?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If the flag is going to be used in several places in dpdk
> > > > > (rte_flow, pmd, app, ...), I wonder if it shouldn't be defined
> > > > > it in rte_mbuf_dyn.c. I
> > > mean:
> > > > >
> > > > > ====
> > > > > /* rte_mbuf_dyn.c */
> > > > > const struct rte_mbuf_dynfield rte_mbuf_dynfield_flow_metadata = {
> > > > >    ...
> > > > > };
> > > > In this case we would make this descriptor global.
> > > > It is no needed, because there Is no supposed any usage, but by
> > > > rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register() only. The
> > >
> > > Yes, in my example I wasn't sure it was going to be private to
> > > rte_flow (see "If the flag is going to be used in several places in
> > > dpdk (rte_flow, pmd, app, ...)").
> > >
> > > So yes, I agree the struct should remain private.
> > OK.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > int rte_mbuf_dynfield_flow_metadata_offset = -1; const struct
> > > > > rte_mbuf_dynflag rte_mbuf_dynflag_flow_metadata = {
> > > > >    ...
> > > > > };
> > > > > int rte_mbuf_dynflag_flow_metadata_bitnum = -1;
> > > > >
> > > > > int rte_mbuf_dyn_flow_metadata_register(void)
> > > > > {
> > > > > ...
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /* rte_mbuf_dyn.h */
> > > > > extern const struct rte_mbuf_dynfield
> > > > > rte_mbuf_dynfield_flow_metadata; extern int
> > > > > rte_mbuf_dynfield_flow_metadata_offset;
> > > > > extern const struct rte_mbuf_dynflag
> > > > > rte_mbuf_dynflag_flow_metadata; extern int
> > > > > rte_mbuf_dynflag_flow_metadata_bitnum;
> > > > >
> > > > > ...helpers to set/get metadata...
> > > > > ===
> > > > >
> > > > > Centralizing the definitions of non-private dynamic fields/flags
> > > > > in rte_mbuf_dyn may help other people to reuse a field that is
> > > > > well described if it match their use-case.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, centralizing is important, that's why MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_xxx
> > > > placed in rte_mbuf_dyn.h. Do you think we should share the
> > > > descriptors
> > > either?
> > > > I have no idea why someone (but rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register())
> > > > might register metadata field directly.
> > >
> > > If the field is private to rte_flow, yes, there is no need to share
> > > the "struct rte_mbuf_dynfield". Even the
> > > rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register() could be marked as internal, right?
> > rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register() is intended to be called by application.
> > Some applications might wish to engage metadata feature, some ones -
> not.
> >
> > >
> > > One more question: I see the registration is done by
> > > parse_vc_action_set_meta(). My understanding is that this function
> > > is not in datapath, and is called when configuring rte_flow. Do you
> confirm?
> > Rather it is called to configure application in general. If user sets
> > metadata (by issuing the appropriate command) it is assumed he/she
> > would like the metadata on Rx side either. This is just for test
> > purposes and it is not brilliant example of
> rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register() use case.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > In your case, what is carried by metadata? Could it be reused by
> > > > > others? I think some more description is needed.
> > > > In my case, metadata is just opaquie rte_flow related 32-bit
> > > > unsigned value provided by
> > > > mlx5 hardrware in rx datapath. I have no guess whether someone
> > > > wishes
> > > to reuse.
> > >
> > > What is the user supposed to do with this value? If it is
> > > hw-specific data, I think the name of the mbuf field should include
> > > "MLX", and it should be described.
> >
> > Metadata are not HW specific at all - they neither control nor are
> > produced by HW (abstracting from the flow engine is implemented in HW).
> > Metadata are some opaque data, it is some kind of link between data
> > path and flow space.  With metadata application may provide some per
> > packet information to flow engine and get back some information from
> flow engine.
> > it is generic concept, supposed to be neither HW-related nor vendor
> specific.
>
> ok, understood, it's like a mark or tag.
>
> > > Are these rte_flow actions somehow specific to mellanox drivers ?
> >
> > AFAIK, currently it is going to be supported by mlx5 PMD only, but
> > concept is common and is not vendor specific.
> >
> > >
> > > > Brief summary of you comment (just to make sure I understood your
> > > proposal in correct way):
> > > > 1. drop all definitions MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_xxx, leave
> > > > MBUF_DYNF_METADATA_NAME only 2. move the descriptor const
> struct
> > > > rte_mbuf_dynfield desc_offs = {} to rte_mbuf_dyn.c and make it
> > > > global 3. provide helpers to access metadata
> > > >
> > > > [1] and [2] look OK in general. Although I think these ones make
> > > > code less
> > > flexible, restrict the potential compile time options.
> > > > For now it is rather theoretical question, if you insist on your
> > > > approach - please, let me know, I'll address [1] and [2] and
> > > > update.my
> > > patch.
> > >
> > > [1] I think the #define only adds an indirection, and I didn't see any
> > >     perf constraint here.
> > > [2] My previous comment was surely not clear, sorry. The code can stay
> > >     in rte_flow.
> > >
> > > > As for [3] - IMHO, the extra abstraction layer is not useful, and
> > > > might be
> > > even harmful.
> > > > I tend not to complicate the code, at least, for now.
> > >
> > > [3] ok for me
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Olivier
> >
 With best regards, Slava