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 F36F641B91; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 19:10:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BAC540684; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 19:10:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-vs1-f43.google.com (mail-vs1-f43.google.com [209.85.217.43]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590644067B for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 19:10:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-vs1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 187so16946269vsv.10 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:10:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UbTc7QczFlegLalIBHMhumomMwdv3rDRbpg4dkqrb1c=; b=ZBlhbja0HLpmk8y6lZT1fYhaKab8zoLwZjZDYM28YwdjLLt7znaS5zmRf8vbSWNX/a mvOvODJJAtFdUCfqTOIrjmvXy91CEYik28zg4+v63aGTjdd2Dy04U6s+8n2STQj7gb8C LiGOdEJ9zds4odWVN8FeGs/oOemImQR3VEoL/YbhOyk8uoQirDA/UYlunCczDYTeThjA kueP0l9nVwSPMDgEMpnxPzOA55Kae5xefttQdx4j/xLymAMex0qefS0V0MgHfEJoaHiu fQHj7M0fnKi9lU1WQHa3VaaYABvlKN46xgMwygjR0vPuTQACrdMS8qAb2zL6ytcrHP4h m1pA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=UbTc7QczFlegLalIBHMhumomMwdv3rDRbpg4dkqrb1c=; b=xMroWaWzF3uAyKkyWxQkRmeZi/pyhzHPjcTCOMi257BKFv6zTZnTNZpa24ZTLxkOgx uPUhJX6bfH2bRYPiOhvHGnL3mKbhNZuDyFkYANrpdk/FO4JT3qg08CcWX/EpKccxar/Q U0oCGSI67Z1N7iZz5Jtj/pQdHGlQ9W3kzVgstw6Go5V7R1/qqm91o2Fa6O5iim/+i6Je rcG6SjPuZMMWAbvqsWYvs8Bx6jRIjPxlmtGAs5pJyKKaoJ0k08chBWuCTytxgogqkda3 lQ315bXnB9l6oJeI6wUTs5jQLjHeHkQgvK8Zv/8z/HXkDy4+XrxNCQIjCk1xMjvAHCCc CQmA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKVKJoRdOIOb2LhZOsSgrXxWLsWgT9ZovQbtSliccLJ4DHJ3Mg3e FJWMe3p/rBLS0J6XU890RmxO3oPIbBm2o7NNq8s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/97O4ZrUIRYIhiT2co6XnEgbYcQl+y3pY8FGfaxUflG/ilZ72iC5uFvFv4BkCbruGFGc6zNvaufyCQzl1K+kE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3642:b0:3fa:5334:55bd with SMTP id s2-20020a056102364200b003fa533455bdmr1182529vsu.31.1675188653565; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:10:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221221090017.3715030-2-rongweil@nvidia.com> <8213257.NyiUUSuA9g@thomas> In-Reply-To: <8213257.NyiUUSuA9g@thomas> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 23:40:27 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] ethdev: add standby flags for live migration To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Rongwei Liu , Ori Kam , dev@dpdk.org, Matan Azrad , Slava Ovsiienko , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , Raslan Darawsheh , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:20 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 31/01/2023 15:45, Ori Kam: > > From: Jerin Jacob > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 2:31 PM Rongwei Liu wrote: > > > > From: Jerin Jacob > > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 8:23 AM Rongwei Liu > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:17 AM Rongwei Liu > > > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 9:15 PM Rongwei Liu > > > > > > > > > > +/**@{@name Process role flags > > > > > > > > > > + * used when migrating from an application to another one. > > > > > > > > > > + * @see rte_eth_process_set_active */ > > > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > > > > > + * When set on a standby process, ingress flow rules will be > > > > > > > > > > +effective > > > > > > > > > > + * in active and standby processes, so the ingress traffic > > > > > > > > > > +may be duplicated. > > > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > > > +#define RTE_ETH_PROCESS_FLAG_STANDBY_DUP_FLOW_INGRESS RTE_BIT32(0) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How to duplicate if action has statefull items for example, > > > > > > > > > rte_flow_action_security::security_session -> it store the live > > > > > > > > > pointer rte_flow_action_meter::mtr_id; -> MTR object ID created > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > rte_mtr_create() > > > > > > > > I agree with you, not all actions can be supported in the > > > > > > > > active/standby model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, Where ever rules are not standalone (like QUEUE, RSS) etc, It > > > > > > > will be architecturally is not possible to migrate with pointers. > > > > > > > That's where I have concern generalizing this feature for this ethdev. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure I understand your concern correctly. What' the pointer concept here? > > > > > > > > > > I meant, Any HW resource driver deals with "pointers" or "fixed ID" > > > > > can not get the same value > > > > > for the new application. That's where I believe this whole concepts works > > > > > for very standalone rte_flow patterns and actions. > > > > > > > > > > > Queue RSS actions can be migrated per my local test. Active/Standby > > > > > application have its fully own rxq/txq. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. It because it is standalone. > > > > > > > > > > > They are totally separated processes and like two members in pipeline. > > > > > > 2nd member can't be feed if 1st member alive and handle the traffic. > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > my view, it should be generic utils functions to track the flow and > > > > > > > installing the rules using rte_flow APIs and keep the scope only for > > > > > > > rte_flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > For rules part, totally agree with you. Issue is there maybe millions > > > > > > of flow rules in field and each rule may take different steps > > > > > > to re-install per vendor' implementations. > > > > > > > > > > I understand the desire for millon flow migrations. Which makes sense. > > > > > IMO, It may be just easy to make this feature just for rte_flow name space. > > > > > Just have APIs to export() existing rules for the given port > > > > > and import() the rules > > > > > exported rather than going to ethdev space and call it as "live migration". > > > > > > > > > Do you mean the API naming should be "rte_flow_process_set_role()" > > > > instead of "rte_eth_process_set_role()" ? > > > > Also move to rte_flow.c/.h files? Are we good to keep the PMD callback > > > > in eth_dev layer? > > > > > > Yes. something with rte_flow_ prefix and not sure _set_role() kind of > > > scheme. > > > > I think that the process of upgrade relates to the entire port and not only the rte_flow, > > I don't mind that this flag will be part of rte_flow, but it looks like this information is in higher level. > > I agree, application migration is a high-level concept. > For now we see that we can take advantage of it for some flow rules. > It could help more use cases. > > I also agree that it is not a full solution. > Migration is complex, that's sure we cannot solve it in few weeks, > and we'll need to add more functions and helpers to make it easy to use > in more cases. Makes sense. > > > > > > Simple export()/import() may not work. Image some flow rules are > > > exclusive and can't be issued from both applications. > > > > We need to stop old application. I am afraid this will introduce big time > > > window which traffic stops. > > > > > > Yes, I think the sequence is > > > rte_flow_rules_export() on app 1 > > > stop the app 1 > > > rte_flow_rules_import() of app 1 by app2. > > > > > I don't think export is the best solution, since maybe the second application doesn't want > > all rules. > > From my understanding the idea is to set priority between two process so when > > one application closes the traffic is going to be received by the second application. > > We have also the option that the second process will get duplicated traffic with the > > First application. > > > > > > Application won't like this behavior. > > > > With this callback, each PMD can specify each rule, queue it or use lower > > > priority if exclusive. Or return error. > > > > > > > > > > This serial wants to propose a unified interface for upper layer > > > application' > > > > > easy use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's just my view. I leave to ethdev maintainers for the rest of > > > > > > > the review and decision on this series. > > That's a first step which allows to declare the migration intent. > We should try to build on top of it and keep it as experimental > as long as needed to achieve a good migration support. > > I am for going in this direction (accept the patch) for now. > If we discover in the next months that there is a better direction, > we can change. Please have a driver support and test application to exercise this API when merging this patch.