DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
To: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>,
	"pbhagavatula@marvell.com" <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>,
	"ferruh.yigit@intel.com" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	"John McNamara" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
	Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"Adrien Mazarguil" <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: add flow action type update as an offload
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 12:49:01 +0300
Message-ID: <a1a892a8-c83b-7c92-2d61-49d681e37383@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR05MB3425460BDDBF44ED7D78362EDB660@AM4PR05MB3425.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

On 10/28/19 5:00 PM, Ori Kam wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: add flow action type update as an
>> offload
>>
>> Hi Ori,
>>
>> On 10/28/19 1:50 PM, Ori Kam wrote:
>>> Hi Pavan,
>>>
>>> Sorry for jumping in late.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why we need this feature. If the user didn't set any flow
>> with MARK
>>> then the user doesn't need to check it.
>> There is pretty long discussion on the topic already, please, read [1].
>>
>> [1]
>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Finbox.dpdk
>> .org%2Fdev%2F3251fc00-7598-1c4f-fc2a-
>> 380065f0a435%40solarflare.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Corika%40mellan
>> ox.com%7Ce3f779d4b7c44b682d6508d75b9d8688%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4
>> d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C637078604439019114&amp;sdata=sYooc%2FQ3C
>> kUZG3gRFPlZrm8xMfMB9gOWWex5YIkWhMc%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>
> Thanks for the link, it was an interesting reading.
>
>>> Also it breaks compatibility.
>> Yes, there is a deprecation notice for it.
>>
>>> If my understanding is correct the MARK field is going to be moved to
>> dynamic field, and this
>>> will be way to control the use of MARK.
>> Yes and I think the offload should used to request dynamic
>> field register. Similar to timestamp in dynamic mbuf examples.
>> Application requests Rx timestamp offload, PMD registers dynamic
>> filed.
>>
> In general it was decided that there will be no capability for rte_flow API, due to the fact that
> it is impossible to support all possible combinations. For example a PMD can allow mark on Rx
> while not supporting it on e-switch (transfer) or on Tx.
> The only way to validate it is validating a flow. If the flow is validated then the action is supported.
> This is the exact approach we are implementing with the Meta feature.
> So as I see it, the logic should be something like this:
> 1. run devconfigure.
> 2. allocate mempool
> 3. setup queues.
> 4. run rte_flow_validate with mark action.
> If flow validated register mark in mbuf else don't register.
> If the PMD needs some special setting for mark he can update the queue when he gets the flow to validate.
> At this stage the device is not started so any change is allowed.

I understand why there is capability reporting in rte_flow API when
it is about rte_flow API itself. The problem appears when rte_flow
API starts to interact with other functionality.
Which pattern/actions should application try in order to decide
if MARK is supported or not. The right answer is a pattern/action
which will be really used, but what to do if there are many
combinations or if these combinations are not know in advance.
Minimal? But I easily imagine cases when minimal is not supported,
but more complex real life patterns are supported.

The main idea behind the offload is as much as you know in advance
as much you can optimize without overcomplicating drivers and HW.

In the case of OVS, absence MARK offload would mean that OVS
should not even try to use partial offload even if it is enabled.
So, no efforts are required to try to convert flow into pattern and
validate the flow rule.



  reply index

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-25 15:21 pbhagavatula
2019-10-25 15:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] drivers/net: update Rx flow flag and mark capabilities pbhagavatula
2019-10-28 10:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: add flow action type update as an offload Ori Kam
2019-10-28 11:53   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-10-28 14:00     ` Ori Kam
2019-10-31  9:49       ` Andrew Rybchenko [this message]
2019-10-31 14:49         ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-10-31 23:59           ` Zhang, Qi Z
2019-11-01 11:35           ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-03 10:22             ` Ori Kam
2019-11-03 11:41               ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-04 18:37                 ` Ori Kam
2019-11-05  6:50                   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-05  8:35                     ` Ori Kam
2019-11-05 11:30                       ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-05 16:37                         ` Ori Kam
2019-11-06  6:40                           ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-06  7:42                             ` Ori Kam
2019-11-08  8:35                               ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-08  9:00                                 ` Tom Barbette
2019-11-08 10:28                                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-08 10:42                                   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-08 11:03                                     ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-08 11:40                                       ` Zhang, Qi Z
2019-11-08 12:12                                         ` Ori Kam
2019-11-08 12:20                                           ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-08 12:42                                             ` Ori Kam
2019-11-08 13:16                                               ` Zhang, Qi Z
2019-11-08 13:26                                                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-08 13:06                                         ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-08 12:00                                       ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-08 13:17                                         ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-08 13:27                                           ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-08 13:30                                             ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-19  9:24                                               ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-19  9:50                                                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-19 10:59                                                   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-11-19 11:09                                                     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-07-03 14:34                                                       ` Ferruh Yigit

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=a1a892a8-c83b-7c92-2d61-49d681e37383@solarflare.com \
    --to=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
    --cc=marko.kovacevic@intel.com \
    --cc=orika@mellanox.com \
    --cc=pbhagavatula@marvell.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /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

Archives are clonable:
	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


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


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