From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60FCA00BE; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 04:30:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9691DCC8; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 04:30:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com (mail-io1-f68.google.com [209.85.166.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD001DCB9 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 04:30:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id f23so41595653iof.6 for ; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 19:30:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gpj+yscdw7v5BOyJyAV7XmHvbEklY8CducY5tY8IZn0=; b=u75I0Zo33FnfO8ASXYJ7UzQ4j5ouhNrNHLX7BNbIaJbMvvFVOsFIMXDr3ZFcZOVHAp Lmm1bNgD+KAhkLFV+1oCVxWniG8f03tlDiU8vECpIb3CezqkaeCETlWz8okfvLLG+C31 Evqbgxolyc3ZVe1RmuCf4DGsSaSVrK8jFGURM2v97Pa6f0aU8QxXKbfI0x3/rLGsfmwi v8lzH6bLcTKoq+EVBxCyPYEokjT+XAMAXESKCKyQxGoUz/9CrjAfNZ2ZAOmfYLtObJm3 CiyswNx6pGqJsETmKRovUIgT64fQ2IUqDEYU/CXUU6dngJMS7AvO4TSH8lflfxB7zcd3 7Njw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gpj+yscdw7v5BOyJyAV7XmHvbEklY8CducY5tY8IZn0=; b=QY2oVal2IZFTdfvv/AczBMpKhHaLOLPkQY7ZFd9NtzLHvNBezRWXillrEXsxIIVP3n DgI6M1Wk3+snL3sMRIKRr9hnC18oH8uRChAkOOZA3xbGBHlxk7Yt5JYcWExONG1XZhg9 RVrXhGLU+b7QYQsxJ7uTERaDZRFLcmkfw4zoEnVQeKQ8NhFSYlh1yAUQIypv5myC/uyJ rNhBH8syX4oH4i6nrwaHF5sVBvHR3GLeyVg9XhxcyEew9ljsZh9RaB04FsHrCCY63T5T i+MRd3G3w03mXlIlpmcLIqQq8JU1bzc898rOT+ZWLbaZzrxGLo40tOho4lKKWI2R0raH FeCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531bnAYJth5hN0k8E+7Y1AnBVi5uxBwmWCw/z7qwmjOhAyC1LUyN bgHoKEL8Dart6jr4vBj1qyTamhyWtP5Wx3G8tyk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZCYuaosU27QD1N4FG8hilv24PaXDEBhDlWNxxr6UG8uCKXh6i9g18Zu7vx92GTPU+xJTDNs99ZNov9qK1lrs= X-Received: by 2002:a02:3501:: with SMTP id k1mr55866442jaa.133.1594089055808; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 19:30:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200702120511.16315-1-andreyv@mellanox.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:00:39 +0530 Message-ID: To: Andrey Vesnovaty Cc: Ori Kam , Andrey Vesnovaty , Thomas Monjalon , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , dpdk-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] add flow shared action API X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 7:02 PM Andrey Vesnovaty wrote: > > Hi, Jerin. Hi Ori and Andrey, > > Please see below Ori's suggestion below to implement your rte_flow_action= _update() idea > with some API changes of rte_flow_shared_action_xxx API changes. > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 3:28 PM Ori Kam wrote: >> >> Hi Jerin, >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Jerin Jacob >> > Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 12:00 PM >> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] add flow shared action API >> > >> > On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 3:56 PM Ori Kam wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Jerin, >> > > PSB, >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Ori >> > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > From: Jerin Jacob >> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 3:33 PM >> > > > dpdk-dev >> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] add flow shared action API >> > > > >> > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 3:40 PM Andrey Vesnovaty >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > >> > > > > Andrey Vesnovaty >> > > > > (+972)526775512 | Skype: andrey775512 >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > [..Nip ..] >> > > >> > > > > I need to mention the locking issue once again. >> > > > > If there is a need to maintain "shared session" in the generic r= te_flow >> > layer >> > > > all >> > > > > calls to flow_create() with shared action & all delete need to t= ake >> > > > sharedsession >> > > > > management locks at least for verification. Lock partitioning is= also bit >> > > > problematic >> > > > > since one flow may have more than one shared action. >> > > > >> > > > Then, I think better approach would be to introduce >> > > > rte_flow_action_update() public >> > > > API which can either take "const struct rte_flow_action []" OR sha= red >> > > > context ID, to cater to >> > > > both cases or something on similar lines. This would allow HW's >> > > > without have the shared context ID >> > > > to use the action update. >> > > >> > > Can you please explain your idea? >> > >> > I see two types of HW schemes supporting action updates without going >> > through call `rte_flow_destroy()` and call `rte_flow_create()` >> > - The shared HW action context feature >> > - The HW has "pattern" and "action" mapped to different HW objects and >> > action can be updated any time. >> > Other than above-mentioned RSS use case, another use case would be to >> > a) create rte_flow and set the action as DROP (Kind of reserving the H= W object) >> > b) Update the action only when the rest of the requirements ready. >> > >> > Any API schematic that supports both notions of HW is fine with me. >> > >> I have an idea if the API will be changed to something like this, >> Rte_flow_shared_action_update(uint16_port port, rte_shared_ctx *ctx, rte= _flow_action *action, error) >> This will enable the application to send a different action than the ori= ginal one to be switched. >> Assuming the PMD supports this. >> Does it answer your concerns? > > > This allows both: > 1. Update action configuration > 2. Replace action by some other action > For 2 pure software implementation may carate shred action (that can be s= hared > with one flow only, depends on PMD) and later on rte_flow_shared_action_u= pdate may replace this > action with some other action by handle returned from rte_flow_shared_act= ion_create > Doesign between 1 and 2 is per PMD. struct rte_flow * object holds the driver representation of the pattern + action. So in order to update the action, we would need struct rte_flow * in API. I think, simple API change would be to accommodate "rte_shared_ctx *ctx, rte_flow_action *action" modes without introducing the emulation for one or other mode, will be. enum rte_flow_action_update_type { RTE_FLOW_ACTION_UPDATE_TYPE_SHARED_ACTION, RTE_FLOW_ACTION_UPDATE_TYPE_ACTION, }; struct rte_flow_action_update_type_param { enum rte_flow_action_update_type type; union { struct rte_flow_action_update_type_shared_action_param= { rte_shared_ctx *ctx; } shared_action; struct rte_flow_action_update_type_shared_action_para= m { rte_flow *flow, rte_flow_action *action; } action; } } rte_flow_action_update(uint16_port port, struct rte_flow_action_update_type_param *param, error) > >> >> > >> > > As I can see if we use the flow_action array it may result in bugs. >> > > For example, the application created two flows with the same RSS (no= t using >> > the context) >> > > Then he wants to change one flow to use different RSS, but the resul= t will that >> > both flows >> > > will be changed. >> > >> > Sorry. I don't quite follow this. >> > >> I was trying to show that there must be some context. But I don=E2=80=99= t think this is relevant to >> your current ideas. >> >> > > Also this will enforce the PMD to keep track on all flows which will= have >> > memory penalty for >> > > some PMDs. >> >> Best, >> Ori > > > Thanks, > Andrey