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 E6E54A00C5; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 15:32:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74871D9E5; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 15:32:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-lf1-f67.google.com (mail-lf1-f67.google.com [209.85.167.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C021D6CB for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 15:32:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf1-f67.google.com with SMTP id k17so9805820lfg.3 for ; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 06:32:38 -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; bh=IeSw4qYErkHHFKE7ryf6K8aSQ8dLFdezAnWVPzz+gt4=; b=WcBymU0PmzWy7qZxCNhO6J3wfJvnqhko/xfF8/99Qm339Pe+GlxdK9EAzl6BCw79Mh auWp8tQDWhmi5fmUvnAq9xKwC3TD/wBqr4oMnPOWc0DW7HT6RhYfBWpQKI8TP9ZOr7Tf 64A5fs7dT7efTA6lbq5lj7RLHvC9wzCufLMgzKevxistBlvpPcxnTWMvZPR6mQxH1Azj rTgHW1pwRpCsPIp6i+lUjr9Vb9ca8GiO7aIbUisuvDEeebOaPu2+a+haui/3fKIRxHDZ IsqvcDBgWIbDioaDlw/Rerd+qSZZspQSfJOeq33CMEirc5fYnLb5QyuNGWWsUPhB4QdV qijQ== 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; bh=IeSw4qYErkHHFKE7ryf6K8aSQ8dLFdezAnWVPzz+gt4=; b=DEgaD6CSUkjUR/t+2Jqe5Fk2MOvn3EXW1zRas5P838W6/87SXKoLz3NEx800MNYuN+ NTxXAepHYyasHpKgqopjhmukdy8KBQjITP9d4c3itJrws8pWohXyqzlFGqdSBav2zZg1 gJrCd7MQ8PNmKfhzICoVqdYcOsDcPQQWxnDDfsFAWgEu8hEmfOQcvnldvd+EHuYK9K8r uGfp5K1GS6TUDjLkymOgn3eWDH/teMGkuOb6Y52JVKJNyC3e9sllukYTpPz2zYEXNt73 vHutx8xP8Qt7NzyG/5Cp1NatZttOfLL4uKeh02E0s73QZ13JG8Iq4d8n9dDFejgBRwQt T7jA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ex7VdBDayuJltYPAU8RTiFdB1x6n8aMNcaCb391e45hFZzin3 D7kdSYd09/Lt/5roMaXvpqByNofx+PjoeZfV7Gk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzr19YtENBstSC7PYHnL2VC+Lnh40fLxABhkpswk/7SxLu1DnilnjT93jOlMi2DSD3G0DZKGC3t5MtYYzwxOII= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3107:: with SMTP id n7mr30886312lfb.63.1594042358162; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 06:32:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200702120511.16315-1-andreyv@mellanox.com> In-Reply-To: From: Andrey Vesnovaty Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 16:32:27 +0300 Message-ID: To: Ori Kam , Jerin Jacob Cc: Andrey Vesnovaty , Thomas Monjalon , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , dpdk-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 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" Hi, Jerin. 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 > rte_flow > > layer > > > > all > > > > > calls to flow_create() with shared action & all delete need to ta= ke > > > > 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 shar= ed > > > > 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 HW > 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 > original 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 shared with one flow only, depends on PMD) and later on rte_flow_shared_action_update may replace this action with some other action by handle returned from rte_flow_shared_action_create Doesign between 1 and 2 is per PMD. > > > > > 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 (not > using > > the context) > > > Then he wants to change one flow to use different RSS, but the result > 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=99t= 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