DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gregory Etelson <getelson@nvidia.com>
To: "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>,
	Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>, Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>,
	Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>,
	Asaf Penso <asafp@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: introduce IPv4 ihl and version fields
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:10:25 +0000
Message-ID: <BY5PR12MB483403988F87DF867B56D960A5359@BY5PR12MB4834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR12MB4834ED5F1354490FB9973AF3A53D9@BY5PR12MB4834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Hello,

There was no activity that patch for a long time.
The patch is marked as failed, but we verified failed tests and concluded that the failures can be ignored.
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210527152858.13312-1-getelson@nvidia.com/
How should I proceed with this case ?
Please advise.

Thank you.

Regards,
Gregory

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Etelson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 12:52
> To: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>; Iremonger, Bernard
> <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>;
> Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>; Olivier Matz
> <olivier.matz@6wind.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tmonjalon@nvidia.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: introduce IPv4 ihl and version fields
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Is there another concern about that patch ?
> Please comment.
> 
> Regards,
> Gregory
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregory Etelson
> > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 14:10
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Morten
> Brørup
> > <mb@smartsharesystems.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>;
> Raslan
> > Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>; Iremonger, Bernard
> > <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>; Olivier Matz
> <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: introduce IPv4 ihl and version
> > fields
> >
> > > > > > > > RTE IPv4 header definition combines the `version' and `ihl'
> > > > > > > > fields into a single structure member.
> > > > > > > > This patch introduces dedicated structure members for both
> > > > > > `version'
> > > > > > > > and `ihl' IPv4 fields. Separated header fields definitions
> > > > > > > > allow to create simplified code to match on the IHL value
> > > > > > > > in a flow
> > > rule.
> > > > > > > > The original `version_ihl' structure member is kept for
> > > > > > > > backward compatibility.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gregory Etelson <getelson@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >  app/test/test_flow_classify.c |  8 ++++----
> > > > > > > >  lib/net/rte_ip.h              | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> > > > > > > >  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/app/test/test_flow_classify.c
> > > > > > > > b/app/test/test_flow_classify.c index
> > > > > > > > 951606f248..4f64be5357
> > > > > > > > 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/app/test/test_flow_classify.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/app/test/test_flow_classify.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static struct rte_acl_field_def
> > > > > > > > ipv4_defs[NUM_FIELDS_IPV4] = {
> > > > > > > >   *  dst mask 255.255.255.00 / udp src is 32 dst is 33 / end"
> > > > > > > >   */
> > > > > > > >  static struct rte_flow_item_ipv4 ipv4_udp_spec_1 = {
> > > > > > > > - { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, IPPROTO_UDP, 0,
> > > > > > > > + { { .version_ihl = 0}, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, IPPROTO_UDP, 0,
> > > > > > > >     RTE_IPV4(2, 2, 2, 3), RTE_IPV4(2, 2, 2, 7)}  };
> > > > > > > > static const struct rte_flow_item_ipv4 ipv4_mask_24 = { @@
> > > > > > > > -131,7
> > > > > > > > +131,7 @@ static struct rte_flow_item  end_item = {
> > > > > RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_END,
> > > > > > > >   *  dst mask 255.255.255.00 / tcp src is 16 dst is 17 / end"
> > > > > > > >   */
> > > > > > > >  static struct rte_flow_item_ipv4 ipv4_tcp_spec_1 = {
> > > > > > > > - { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, IPPROTO_TCP, 0,
> > > > > > > > + { { .version_ihl = 0}, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, IPPROTO_TCP, 0,
> > > > > > > >     RTE_IPV4(1, 2, 3, 4), RTE_IPV4(5, 6, 7, 8)}  };
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @@ -150,8 +150,8 @@ static struct rte_flow_item
> > > > > > > > tcp_item_1 = { RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_TCP,
> > > > > > > >   *  dst mask 255.255.255.00 / sctp src is 16 dst is 17/ end"
> > > > > > > >   */
> > > > > > > >  static struct rte_flow_item_ipv4 ipv4_sctp_spec_1 = {
> > > > > > > > - { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, IPPROTO_SCTP, 0, RTE_IPV4(11, 12,
> > > > > > > > 13, 14),
> > > > > > > > - RTE_IPV4(15, 16, 17, 18)}
> > > > > > > > + { { .version_ihl = 0}, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, IPPROTO_SCTP, 0,
> > > > > > > > + RTE_IPV4(11, 12, 13, 14), RTE_IPV4(15, 16, 17, 18)}
> > > > > > > >  };
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  static struct rte_flow_item_sctp sctp_spec_1 = { diff
> > > > > > > > --git a/lib/net/rte_ip.h b/lib/net/rte_ip.h index
> > > > > > > > 4b728969c1..684bb028b2
> > > > > > > > 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/lib/net/rte_ip.h
> > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/net/rte_ip.h
> > > > > > > > @@ -38,7 +38,21 @@ extern "C" {
> > > > > > > >   * IPv4 Header
> > > > > > > >   */
> > > > > > > >  struct rte_ipv4_hdr {
> > > > > > > > - uint8_t  version_ihl;           /**< version and header length */
> > > > > > > > + __extension__
> > > > > > > > + union {
> > > > > > > > +         uint8_t version_ihl;    /**< version and header length */
> > > > > > > > +         struct {
> > > > > > > > +#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > > > > > > > +                 uint8_t ihl:4;
> > > > > > > > +                 uint8_t version:4; #elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER
> > > > > > > > +== RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> > > > > > > > +                 uint8_t version:4;
> > > > > > > > +                 uint8_t ihl:4; #else #error "setup
> > > > > > > > +endian definition"
> > > > > > > > +#endif
> > > > > > > > +         };
> > > > > > > > + };
> > > > > > > >   uint8_t  type_of_service;       /**< type of service */
> > > > > > > >   rte_be16_t total_length;        /**< length of packet */
> > > > > > > >   rte_be16_t packet_id;           /**< packet ID */
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 2.31.1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This does not break the ABI, but it could be discussed if it
> > > > > > > breaks
> > > > > > the API due to the required structure initialization changes
> > > > > > shown in
> > > > > > > test_flow_classify.c.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep, I guess it might be classified as API change.
> > > > > > Another thing that concerns me - it is not the only place in
> > > > > > IPv4 header when we unite multiple bit-fields into one field:
> > > > > > type_of_service, fragment_offset.
> > > > > > If we start splitting ipv4 fields into actual bitfields, I
> > > > > > suppose we'll end-up splitting these ones too.
> > > > > > But I am not sure it will pay off - as compiler not always
> > > > > > generates optimal code for reading/updating bitfields.
> > > > > > Did you consider just adding extra macros to simplify access
> > > > > > to these fields (like RTE_IPV4_HDR_(GET_SET)_*), instead?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's please not introduce accessor macros for bitfields. If we
> > > > > don't introduce bitfields like these, I would rather stick with
> > > > > the current _MASK, _SHIFT and _FLAG defines.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, this change will lead to the introduction of more
> > > > > bitfields, both here and in other places. We already accepted it
> > > > > in the eCPRI structure (/lib/net/rte_ecpri.h), so why not just
> generally accept it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are modern compilers really worse at handling a bitfield defined
> > > > > like this, compared to handling a single uint8_t with hand coding?
> > > > > I consider your concern very important, so I'm only asking if it
> > > > > is still relevant, to avoid making decisions based on past
> > > > > experience that might be outdated. (I admit to falling into that
> > > > > trap myself, once in a while.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I compared x86 code generated with gcc-9, gcc-10 and clang-10 for
> > > > these
> > > 2 functions:
> > > > void test_ipv4_hdr_byte(struct rte_ipv4_hdr *h, uint8_t version,
> > > > uint8_t ihl) {
> > > >       h->version_ihl = ((version & 0x0f) << 4) | (ihl & 0x0f); }
> > > > void test_ipv4_hdr_bits(struct rte_ipv4_hdr *h, uint8_t version,
> > > > uint8_t
> > > > ihl) {
> > > >       h->version = version & 0x0f;
> > > >       h->ihl = ihl & 0x0f;
> > > > }
> > > > meson configuration flags: --default-library=static
> > > > --buildtype=release Each compiler produced identical code for both
> > > functions.
> > >
> > > For that particular case (2 bit-fields packed tightly into one byte)
> > > compilers usually perform quite well. At least I never saw issues
> > > for such
> > case.
> > > Bit-fields that do cross byte boundaries - that might be a trouble.
> > >
> >
> > Can we keep both implementations, the combined byte and the bit-field,
> > grouped into a union ? In that case application or PMD can select
> > access method that fits.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > I think this patch is an improvement, and that such
> > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > modifications should be generally accepted, so:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> > > > > >


  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-10  4:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-27 15:28 Gregory Etelson
2021-05-27 15:56 ` Morten Brørup
2021-05-28 10:20   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-05-28 10:52     ` Morten Brørup
2021-05-28 14:18       ` Gregory Etelson
2021-05-31  9:58         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-05-31 11:10           ` Gregory Etelson
2021-06-02  9:51             ` Gregory Etelson
2021-06-10  4:10               ` Gregory Etelson [this message]
2021-06-10  9:22                 ` Olivier Matz
2021-06-14 16:36                   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-17 16:29                     ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-06-03  0:58   ` Min Hu (Connor)
2021-06-03  2:03     ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-06-03  4:59       ` Gregory Etelson
2021-06-17 15:02 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2021-09-03  7:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " getelson
2021-10-04  7:49   ` Olivier Matz
2021-10-04  8:59     ` Gregory Etelson
2021-10-04  8:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Gregory Etelson
2021-10-04 12:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Gregory Etelson
2021-10-04 15:59   ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-10-04 16:48     ` Olivier Matz
2021-10-12 12:36       ` Gregory Etelson
2021-10-12 12:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] " Gregory Etelson
2021-10-13  8:58   ` Kinsella, Ray
2021-10-13 12:14   ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-13 17:12     ` Gregory Etelson
2021-10-13 17:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/2] " Gregory Etelson
2021-10-13 17:13   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] net: fix IPv4 change announce Gregory Etelson
2021-10-14  8:37     ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-10-14 11:03       ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-14 12:21         ` Gregory Etelson
2021-10-14 12:32           ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-14 13:34             ` Ori Kam
2021-10-14 12:53       ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2021-10-13 17:13   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] net: introduce IPv4 ihl and version fields Gregory Etelson
2021-10-14 15:11     ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-14 16:04       ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-10-14 17:42         ` Gregory Etelson
2021-10-14  8:21   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/2] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-14  8:30     ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-10-14 11:01       ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-14  9:29     ` Gregory Etelson
2021-10-14 11:10       ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-14 17:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 " Gregory Etelson
2021-10-14 17:41   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/2] net: fix IPv4 change announce Gregory Etelson
2021-10-14 20:00     ` Slava Ovsiienko
2021-10-21 22:00       ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-10-14 17:41   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 2/2] net: introduce IPv4 ihl and version fields Gregory Etelson
2021-10-14 18:16     ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-10-14 19:52   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/2] " 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=BY5PR12MB483403988F87DF867B56D960A5359@BY5PR12MB4834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=getelson@nvidia.com \
    --cc=asafp@nvidia.com \
    --cc=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=matan@nvidia.com \
    --cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=orika@nvidia.com \
    --cc=rasland@nvidia.com \
    /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

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git