Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of Rx meta data

[Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>]

Hi Ivan,

Sorry for the long review.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Malov <Ivan.Malov@oktetlabs.ru>
> Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 8:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of Rx meta
> data
> 
> Hi Ori,
> 
> On 03/10/2021 14:01, Ori Kam wrote:
> > Hi Ivan,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ivan Malov <Ivan.Malov@oktetlabs.ru>
> >> Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 12:30 PM data
> >>
> >> Hi Ori,
> >>
> >> Thanks for reviewing this.
> >>
> >
> > No problem.
> >
> >> On 03/10/2021 10:42, Ori Kam wrote:
> >>> Hi Andrew and Ivan,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
> >>>> Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 9:50 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery
> >>>> of Rx meta data
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/30/21 10:07 PM, Ivan Malov wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Ori,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 30/09/2021 17:59, Ori Kam wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Ivan,
> >>>>>> Sorry for jumping in late.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No worries. That's OK.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I have a concern that this patch breaks other PMDs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It does no such thing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>   From the rst file " One should negotiate flag delivery beforehand"
> >>>>>> since you only added this function for your PMD all other PMD will
> fail.
> >>>>>> I see that you added exception in the  examples, but it doesn't
> >>>>>> make sense that applications will also need to add this exception
> >>>>>> which is not documented.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Say, you have an application, and you use it with some specific PMD.
> >>>>> Say, that PMD doesn't run into the problem as ours does. In other
> >>>>> words, the user can insert a flow with action MARK at any point
> >>>>> and get mark delivery working starting from that moment without
> >>>>> any problem. Say, this is exactly the way how it works for you at
> >>>>> the
> >> moment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now. This new API kicks in. We update the application to invoke it
> >>>>> as early as possible. But your PMD in question still doesn't
> >>>>> support this API. The comment in the patch says that if the method
> >>>>> returns ENOTSUP, the application should ignore that without
> >>>>> batting an eyelid. It should just keep on working as it did before
> >>>>> the introduction of
> >> this API.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> I understand that it is nice to write in the patch comment that
> >>> application should disregard this function in case of ENOTSUP but in
> >>> a few month someone will read the official doc, where it is stated
> >>> that this function call is a must and then what do you think the
> >>> application will do?
> >>> I think that the correct way is to add this function to all PMDs.
> >>> Another option is to add to the doc that if the function is
> >>> returning ENOTSUP the application should assume that all is supported.
> >>>
> >>> So from this point of view there is API break.
> >>
> >> So, you mean an API breakage in some formal sense? If the doc is
> >> fixed in accordance with the second option you suggest, will it
> >> suffice to avoid this formal API breakage?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, but I think it will be better to add the missing function.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>> More specific example:
> >>>>> Say, the application doesn't mind using either "RSS + MARK" or
> >>>>> tunnel offload. What it does right now is attempt to insert tunnel
> >>>>> flows first and, if this fails, fall back to "RSS + MARK". With
> >>>>> this API, the application will try to invoke this API with
> >>>>> "USER_MARK | TUNNEL_ID" in adapter initialised state. If the PMD
> >>>>> says that it can only enable the tunnel offload, then the
> >>>>> application will get the knowledge that it doesn't make sense to
> >>>>> even try inserting "RSS + MARK" flows. It just can skip useless
> >>>>> actions. But if the PMD doesn't support the method, the
> >>>>> application will see ENOTSUP and handle this
> >>>>> gracefully: it will make no assumptions about what's guaranteed to
> >>>>> be supported and what's not and will just keep on its old behavior:
> >>>>> try to insert a flow, fail, fall back to another type of flow.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> I fully agree with your example, and think that this is the way to
> >>> go, application should supply as much info as possible during startup.
> >>
> >> Right.
> >>
> >>> My question/comment is the negotiated result means that all of the
> >>> actions are supported on the same rule?
> >>> for example if application wants to add mark and tag on the same rule.
> >>> (I know it doesn't make much sense) and the PMD can support both of
> >>> them but not on the same rule, what should it return?
> >>> Or for example if using the mark can only be supported if no decap
> >>> action is set on this rule what should be the result?
> >>>   From my undstanding this function is only to let the PMD know that
> >>> on some rules the application will use those actions, the checking
> >>> if the action combination is valid only happens on validate function right?
> >>
> >> This API does not bind itself to flow API. It's *not* about enabling
> >> support for metadata *actions* (they are conducted entirely *inside*
> >> the NIC). It's about enabling *delivery* of metadata from the NIC to host.
> >>
> >
> > Good point so why not use the same logic as the metadata and register it?
> > Since in any case, this is something in the mbuf so maybe this should be the
> answer?
> 
> I didn't catch your thought. Could you please elaborate on it?

The metadata action just like the mark or flag is used to give application
data that was set by a flow rule.
To enable the metadata the application must register the metadata field.
Since this happens during the creation of the mbuf it means that it must be
created before the device start.

I understand that the mark and flag don't need to be registered in the mbuf
since they have saved space but from application point of view there is no
difference between the metadata and mark, so why does negotiate function
doesn't handle the metadata?

I hope this is clearer.

> 
> >
> >> Say, you insert a flow rule to mark some packets. The NIC, internally
> >> (in the
> >> e-switch) adds the mark to matching packets. Yes, in the boundaries
> >> of the NIC HW, the packets bear the mark on them. It has been set,
> >> yes. But when time comes to *deliver* the packets to the host, the
> >> NIC (at least, in net/sfc
> >> case) has two options: either provide only a small chunk of the
> >> metadata for each packet *to the host*, which doesn't include mark
> >> ID, flag and RSS hash, OR, alternatively, provide the full set of
> >> metadata. In the former option, the mark is simply not delivered.
> >> Once again: it *has been set*, but simply will not be *delivered to the
> host*.
> >>
> >> So, this API is about negotiating *delivery* of metadata. In pure
> >> technical sense. And the set of flags that this API returns indicates
> >> which kinds of metadata the NIC will be able to deliver simultaneously.
> >>
> >> For example, as I understand, in the case of tunnel offload, MLX5
> >> claims Rx mark entirely for tunnel ID metadata, so, if an application
> >> requests "MARK | TUNNEL_ID" with this API, this PMD should probably
> >> want to respond with just "TUNNEL_ID". The application will see the
> >> response and realise that, even if it adds its *own* (user) action
> >> MARK to a flow and if the flow is not rejected by the PMD, it won't
> >> be able to see the mark in the received mbufs (or the mark will be
> incorrect).
> >>
> > So what should the application do if on some flows it wants MARK and on
> other FLAG?
> 
> You mentioned flows, so I'd like to stress this out one more time: what this
> API cares about is solely the possibility to deliver metadata between the NIC
> and the host. The host == the PMD (*not* application).
> 

I understand that you are only talking about enabling the action,
meaning to let the PMD know that at some point there will be a rule
that will use the mark action for example. 
Is my understanding correct?
I don't understand your last comment about host == PMD since at the end
this value should be given to the application.

> >  From DPDK viewpoint both of them can't be shared on the same rule
> > (they are using the same space in mbuf) so the application will never
> > ask for both of them in the same rule but he can on some rules ask for
> > mark while on other request for FLAG, even in your code you added both
> of them.
> >
> > So what should the PMD return if it can support both of them just not
> > at the same rule?
> 
> Please see above. This is not about rules. This is not about the way how flag
> and mark are presented *by* the PMD *to* the application in mbufs.
> Simultaneous use of actions FLAG and MARK in flows must be ruled out by
> rte_flow_validate() / rte_flow_create(). The way how flag and mark are
> *represented* in mbufs belongs in mbuf library responsibility domain.
> 
> Consider the following operational sequence:
> 
> 1) The NIC has a packet, which has metadata associated with it;
> 2) The NIC transfers this packet to the host;
> 3) The PMD sees the packet and its metadata;
> 4) The PMD represents whatever available metadata in mbuf format.
> 
> Features negotiated by virtue of this API (for instance, FLAG and MARK)
> enable delivery of these kinds of metadata between points (2) and (3).
> 
> And the problem of flag / mark co-existence in mbufs sits at point (4).
> 
> -> Completely different problems, in fact.
> 

Agree.

> >
> > One option is to document that the supported values are not per rule
> > but for the entire port. For example in the example you gave MLX5 will
> > support mark + flag but will not support mark + tunnel.
> 
> Yes, for the port. Flow rules are a don't care to this API.
> 
> >
> > Also considering your example, the negotiation may result in subpar result.
> > taking your example the PMD returned  TUNNEL_ID maybe application
> > would prefer to have the mark and not the TUNNEL_ID. I understand that
> > application can check and try again with just the MARK.
> 
> Exactly. The Application can repeat negotiation with just MARK. Is there any
> problem with that?
> 

I understand that the application can negotiate again and again.
I just don't like that the PMD has logic and selects what he thinks will be best.

I wanted to suggest that the PMD will just tell what are the conflicts and the application
will negotiate again based on its logic.

> > You are inserting logic to the PMD, maybe the function should just
> > fail maybe returning the conflicting items?
> 
> Why return conflicting items? The optimal subset (from the PMD's
> perspective) should be returned. It's a silver lining. In the end, the application
> can learn which features can be enabled and in what combinations. And it
> can rely on the outcome of the negotiation process.
> 
That is my point this is PMD perspective, not the application. 
how can a PMD define an optimal subset? How can it know what is more
important to the application?
Also, the PMD logic is internal so if for some reason
the PMD selected the best for the application by chance, so the application learns
that this is a good value for him. A release later the internal PMD logic changes
for example, a new feature was added, other customer requests.
since this is PMD the original app is not aware of this change and may fail.

We both agree that the application should check the result and renegotiate if needed
I only suggested that the PMD will only return error and not assume he knows best.


> >
> >
> >
> >> But some other PMDs (net/sfc, for instance) claim only a small fraction of
> bits
> >> in Rx mark to deliver tunnel ID information. Remaining bits are still
> available
> >> for delivery of *user* mark ID. Please see an example at
> >> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210929205730.775-2-
> >> ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru/
> >> . In this case, the PMD may want to return both flags in the response:
> >> "MARK | TUNNEL_ID". This way, the application knows that both features
> >> are enabled and available for use.
> >>
> >> Now. I anticipate more questions asking why wouldn't we prefer flow API
> >> terminology or why wouldn't we add an API for negotiating support for
> >> metadata *actions* and not just metadata *delivery*. There's an answer.
> >> Always has been.
> >>
> >> The thing is, the use of *actions* is very complicated. For example, the
> PMD
> >> may support action MARK for "transfer" flows but not for non-"transfer"
> >> ones. Also, simultaneous use of multiple different metadata actions may
> not
> >> be possible. And, last but not least, if we force the application to check
> >> support for *actions* on action-after-action basis, the order of checks will
> be
> >> very confusing to applications.
> >>
> >> Previously, in this thread, Thomas suggested to go for exactly this type of
> >> API, to check support for actions one-by-one, without any context
> >> ("transfer" / non-"transfer"). I'm afraid, this won't be OK.
> >>
> > +1 to keeping it as a separated API. (I agree actions limitation are very
> complex metrix)
> >
> >>>
> >>> In any case I think this is good idea and I will see how we can add a
> >>> more generic approach of this API to the new API that I'm going to
> present.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> So no breakages with this API.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please see more comments inline.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Ori
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>
> >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 2:20 PM
> >>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of
> >>>>>>> Rx meta data
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Delivery of mark, flag and the likes might affect small packet
> >>>>>>> performance.
> >>>>>>> If these features are disabled by default, enabling them in
> >>>>>>> started state without causing traffic disruption may not always be
> >> possible.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let applications negotiate delivery of Rx meta data beforehand.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>
> >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Rybchenko
> >> <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
> >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Moreton <amoreton@xilinx.com>
> >>>>>>> Acked-by: Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> >>>>>>> Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>     app/test-flow-perf/main.c              | 21 ++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>     app/test-pmd/testpmd.c                 | 26 +++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>     doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst |  9 ++++++
> >>>>>>>     lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h             | 19 +++++++++++
> >>>>>>>     lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c                | 25 ++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>     lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h                | 45
> >>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>     lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h                  | 12 +++++++
> >>>>>>>     lib/ethdev/version.map                 |  3 ++
> >>>>>>>     8 files changed, 160 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-flow-perf/main.c b/app/test-flow-perf/main.c
> >>>>>>> index 9be8edc31d..48eafffb1d 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/app/test-flow-perf/main.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/app/test-flow-perf/main.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -1760,6 +1760,27 @@ init_port(void)
> >>>>>>>             rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Error: can't init mbuf
> >>>>>>> pool\n");
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>         for (port_id = 0; port_id < nr_ports; port_id++) {
> >>>>>>> +        uint64_t rx_meta_features = 0;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +        rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG;
> >>>>>>> +        rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +        ret = rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate(port_id,
> >>>>>>> &rx_meta_features);
> >>>>>>> +        if (ret == 0) {
> >>>>>>> +            if (!(rx_meta_features &
> >>>>>>> RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG)) {
> >>>>>>> +                printf(":: flow action FLAG will not affect Rx
> >>>>>>> mbufs on port=%u\n",
> >>>>>>> +                       port_id);
> >>>>>>> +            }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +            if (!(rx_meta_features &
> >>>>>>> RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK)) {
> >>>>>>> +                printf(":: flow action MARK will not affect Rx
> >>>>>>> mbufs on port=%u\n",
> >>>>>>> +                       port_id);
> >>>>>>> +            }
> >>>>>>> +        } else if (ret != -ENOTSUP) {
> >>>>>>> +            rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Error when negotiating Rx
> >>>>>>> meta features on port=%u: %s\n",
> >>>>>>> +                 port_id, rte_strerror(-ret));
> >>>>>>> +        }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>             ret = rte_eth_dev_info_get(port_id, &dev_info);
> >>>>>>>             if (ret != 0)
> >>>>>>>                 rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, diff --git
> >>>>>>> a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
> >>>>>>> 97ae52e17e..7a8da3d7ab 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -1485,10 +1485,36 @@ static void
> >>>>>>>     init_config_port_offloads(portid_t pid, uint32_t socket_id)  {
> >>>>>>>         struct rte_port *port = &ports[pid];
> >>>>>>> +    uint64_t rx_meta_features = 0;
> >>>>>>>         uint16_t data_size;
> >>>>>>>         int ret;
> >>>>>>>         int i;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +    rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG;
> >>>>>>> +    rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK;
> >>>>>>> +    rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +    ret = rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate(pid, &rx_meta_features);
> >>>>>>> +    if (ret == 0) {
> >>>>>>> +        if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG)) {
> >>>>>>> +            TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow action FLAG will not
> >>>>>>> affect Rx mbufs on port %u\n",
> >>>>>>> +                    pid);
> >>>>>>> +        }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +        if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK))
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> +            TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow action MARK will not
> >>>>>>> affect Rx mbufs on port %u\n",
> >>>>>>> +                    pid);
> >>>>>>> +        }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +        if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID)) {
> >>>>>>> +            TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow tunnel offload support
> >>>>>>> might be limited or unavailable on port %u\n",
> >>>>>>> +                    pid);
> >>>>>>> +        }
> >>>>>>> +    } else if (ret != -ENOTSUP) {
> >>>>>>> +        rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Error when negotiating Rx meta
> >>>>>>> features on port %u: %s\n",
> >>>>>>> +             pid, rte_strerror(-ret));
> >>>>>>> +    }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>         port->dev_conf.txmode = tx_mode;
> >>>>>>>         port->dev_conf.rxmode = rx_mode;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
> >>>>>>> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
> >>>>>>> index 19356ac53c..6674d4474c 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
> >>>>>>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
> >>>>>>> @@ -106,6 +106,15 @@ New Features
> >>>>>>>       Added command-line options to specify total number of
> >>>>>>> processes and
> >>>>>>>       current process ID. Each process owns subset of Rx and Tx
> queues.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +* **Added an API to negotiate delivery of specific parts of Rx
> >>>>>>> +meta
> >>>>>>> +data**
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +  A new API, ``rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate()``, was added.
> >>>>>>> +  The following parts of Rx meta data were defined:
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +  * ``RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG``
> >>>>>>> +  * ``RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK``
> >>>>>>> +  * ``RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID``
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     Removed Items
> >>>>>>>     -------------
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
> >>>>>>> b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h index 40e474aa7e..96e0c60cae
> 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
> >>>>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
> >>>>>>> @@ -789,6 +789,22 @@ typedef int
> (*eth_get_monitor_addr_t)(void
> >>>>>>> *rxq, typedef int (*eth_representor_info_get_t)(struct
> rte_eth_dev
> >>>>>>> *dev,
> >>>>>>>         struct rte_eth_representor_info *info);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +/**
> >>>>>>> + * @internal
> >>>>>>> + * Negotiate delivery of specific parts of Rx meta data.
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * @param dev
> >>>>>>> + *   Port (ethdev) handle
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * @param[inout] features
> >>>>>>> + *   Feature selection buffer
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * @return
> >>>>>>> + *   Negative errno value on error, zero otherwise  */ typedef
> >>>>>>> +int (*eth_rx_meta_negotiate_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> >>>>>>> +                       uint64_t *features);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>     /**
> >>>>>>>      * @internal A structure containing the functions exported by
> >>>>>>> an Ethernet driver.
> >>>>>>>      */
> >>>>>>> @@ -949,6 +965,9 @@ struct eth_dev_ops {
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>         eth_representor_info_get_t representor_info_get;
> >>>>>>>         /**< Get representor info. */
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +    eth_rx_meta_negotiate_t rx_meta_negotiate;
> >>>>>>> +    /**< Negotiate delivery of specific parts of Rx meta data. */
> >>>>>>>     };
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     /**
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >>>>>>> index daf5ca9242..49cb84d64c 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -6310,6 +6310,31 @@ rte_eth_representor_info_get(uint16_t
> >>>>>>> port_id,
> >>>>>>>         return eth_err(port_id, (*dev->dev_ops-
> >>>>>>>> representor_info_get)(dev, info));  }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +int
> >>>>>>> +rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate(uint16_t port_id, uint64_t
> *features) {
> >>>>>>> +    struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +    RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
> >>>>>>> +    dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +    if (dev->data->dev_configured != 0) {
> >>>>>>> +        RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR,
> >>>>>>> +            "The port (id=%"PRIu16") is already configured\n",
> >>>>>>> +            port_id);
> >>>>>>> +        return -EBUSY;
> >>>>>>> +    }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +    if (features == NULL) {
> >>>>>>> +        RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Invalid features (NULL)\n");
> >>>>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
> >>>>>>> +    }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +    RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops-
> >>> rx_meta_negotiate,
> >>>>>>> -ENOTSUP);
> >>>>>>> +    return eth_err(port_id,
> >>>>>>> +               (*dev->dev_ops->rx_meta_negotiate)(dev,
> >>>>>>> +features)); }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>     RTE_LOG_REGISTER_DEFAULT(rte_eth_dev_logtype, INFO);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     RTE_INIT(ethdev_init_telemetry) diff --git
> >>>>>>> a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h index
> >>>>>>> 1da37896d8..8467a7a362 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> >>>>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> >>>>>>> @@ -4888,6 +4888,51 @@ __rte_experimental  int
> >>>>>>> rte_eth_representor_info_get(uint16_t port_id,
> >>>>>>>                      struct rte_eth_representor_info *info);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +/** The ethdev sees flagged packets if there are flows with
> >>>>>>> +action FLAG. */ #define RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG
> >> (UINT64_C(1) <<
> >>>>>>> +0)
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +/** The ethdev sees mark IDs in packets if there are flows with
> >>>>>>> +action MARK. */ #define RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK
> >>>> (UINT64_C(1) <<
> >>>>>>> +1)
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +/** The ethdev detects missed packets if there are "tunnel_set"
> >>>>>>> +flows in use. */ #define RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID
> >> (UINT64_C(1)
> >>>> <<
> >>>>>>> +2)
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +/**
> >>>>>>> + * @warning
> >>>>>>> + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this API may change without prior notice
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * Negotiate delivery of specific parts of Rx meta data.
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * Invoke this API before the first rte_eth_dev_configure()
> >>>>>>> +invocation
> >>>>>>> + * to let the PMD make preparations that are inconvenient to do
> >> later.
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * The negotiation process is as follows:
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * - the application requests features intending to use at least
> >>>>>>> +some of them;
> >>>>>>> + * - the PMD responds with the guaranteed subset of the
> requested
> >>>>>>> +feature set;
> >>>>>>> + * - the application can retry negotiation with another set of
> >>>>>>> +features;
> >>>>>>> + * - the application can pass zero to clear the negotiation
> >>>>>>> +result;
> >>>>>>> + * - the last negotiated result takes effect upon the ethdev start.
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * If this API is unsupported, the application should gracefully
> >>>>>>> ignore that.
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * @param port_id
> >>>>>>> + *   Port (ethdev) identifier
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * @param[inout] features
> >>>>>>> + *   Feature selection buffer
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * @return
> >>>>>>> + *   - (-EBUSY) if the port can't handle this in its current
> >>>>>>> +state;
> >>>>>>> + *   - (-ENOTSUP) if the method itself is not supported by the
> >>>>>>> +PMD;
> >>>>>>> + *   - (-ENODEV) if *port_id* is invalid;
> >>>>>>> + *   - (-EINVAL) if *features* is NULL;
> >>>>>>> + *   - (-EIO) if the device is removed;
> >>>>>>> + *   - (0) on success
> >>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>> +__rte_experimental
> >>>>>>> +int rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate(uint16_t port_id, uint64_t
> >>>>>>> +*features);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think meta is the best name since we also have meta item
> >>>>>> and the word meta can be used in other cases.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm no expert in naming. What could be a better term for this?
> >>>>> Personally, I'd rather not perceive "meta" the way you describe.
> >>>>> It's not just "meta". It's "rx_meta", and the flags supplied with
> >>>>> this API provide enough context to explain what it's all about.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thinking overnight about it I'd suggest full "metadata".
> >>>> Yes, it will name a bit longer, but less confusing versus term META
> >>>> already used in flow API.
> >>>>
> >>> Following my above comments, I think it should be part of the new API
> >>> but in any case what about rx_flow_action_negotiate?
> >>
> >> See my thoughts above. It makes no sense to negotiate *support for
> >> actions*. Existing "rte_flow_validate()" already does that job. The new
> >> "negotiate Rx metadata* API is all about *delivery* of metadata which is
> >> supposed to be *already* set for the packets *inside* the NIC. So, we
> >> negotiate *delivery from the NIC to the host*. Nothing more.
> >>
> > Agree with your comment but then maybe we should go to the register
> > approach just like metadata?
> 
> Don't you mean "registering mbuf dynamic field / flag" by any chance?
> Even if it's technically possible, this may complicate the API contract
> because the key idea here is to demand that the application negotiate
> metadata delivery at the earliest step possible (before configuring the
> port), whilst a dynamic field / flag can be (theoretically) registered
> at any time. But, of course, feel free to elaborate on your idea.
> 

Yes, like I said above I don't see a difference between metadata
and mark, at least not from the application usage.
I assume you need this info at device start and by definition
the registration should happen before. (mbuf should be configured
before start)

> We should make sure that we all reach an agreement.
> 

+1 I think we can agree that there is a need for letting the PMD
know before the start that some action will be used.

And I'm sorry if I sound picky and hard, this is not my intention.
I'm also doing my best to review this as fast as I can.
My open issues and priorities:
1. the API breakage the possible solution adding support for the rest of the PMDs / update doc
to say that if the function is not supported the application should assume that
it can still use the mark / flag. -- blocker this must be resolved.
2. function name. my main issue is that metadata should be just like mark
maybe the solution can be adding metadata flag to this function.
the drawback is that the application needs to calls two functions to configure
metadata. -- high priority but if you can give me good reasoning not just
we don't need to register the mark I guess I will be O.K.
3. If PMD has internal logic in case of conflict or not.
Please think about it. -- low prio I will agree to what you decide.
but if you decide that PMD will have internal logic then this must be documented
so the application will know not to rely on the results.

Best,
Ori

> >
> > Best,
> > Ori
> >>>
> >>>> Andrew.
> >>> Best,
> >>> Ori
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ivan M
> 
> --
> Ivan M