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 B57A3A0353; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 12:00:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757FF2B87; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 12:00:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [67.231.154.164]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F251B62 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 12:00:02 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from webmail.solarflare.com (webmail.solarflare.com [12.187.104.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1-us4.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 2729BB4005B; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.38.17] (91.220.146.112) by ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:59:45 -0800 To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , Ori Kam , "dev@dpdk.org" , "pbhagavatula@marvell.com" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , John McNamara , "Marko Kovacevic" , Adrien Mazarguil , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "ktraynor@redhat.com" , Olivier Matz , Raslan Darawsheh , Qi Zhang References: <20191025152142.12887-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com> <2760933.8gZJoIoSqR@xps> <2911d85f-fa61-ba05-6251-0f79dc8a74b6@solarflare.com> <8032312.HfnmF1KY9p@xps> From: Andrew Rybchenko Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=arybchenko@solarflare.com; keydata= mQINBF2681gBEACbdTxu8eLL3UX2oAelsnK9GkeaJeUYSOHPJQpV7RL/iaIskqTwBRnhjXt7 j9UEwGA+omnOmqQMpeQTb/F9Ma2dYE+Hw4/t/1KVjxr3ehFaASvwR4fWJfO4e2l/Rk4rG6Yi 5r6CWU2y8su2654Fr8KFc+cMGOAgKoZTZHZsRy5lHpMlemeF+VZkv8L5sYJWPnsypgqlCG3h v6lbtfZs+QqYbFH6bqoZwBAl5irmxywGR7ZJr1GLUZZ1lfdazSY8r6Vz0/Ip/KVxGu2uxo81 QCsAj0ZsQtwji9Sds/prTiPrIjx8Fc/tfbnAuVuPcnPbczwCJACzQr4q26XATL3kVuZhSBWh 4XfO/EAUuEq5AemUG5DDTM87g7Lp4eT9gMZB6P+rJwWPNWTiV3L7Cn+fO+l9mTPnOqdzBgDe OaulKiNSft1o0DY4bGzOmM2ad2cZt0jfnbMPMTE9zsr6+RFa+M8Ct20o6U1MUE4vP6veErMK of4kZ8PdoMM+Sq1hxMPNtlcVBSP9xMmdSZPlfDYI5VWosOceEcz7XZdjBJKdwKuz70V7eac4 ITSxgNFCTbeJ03zL2MR5s0IvD9ghISAwZ6ieCjU5UATn5+63qpD0nVNLsAdb/UpfvQcKAmvj 0fKlxu/PMVkjBa7/4cfNogYOhWDKUO+1pMaFwvb6/XTo6uMpfQARAQABtCxBbmRyZXcgUnli Y2hlbmtvIDxhcnliY2hlbmtvQHNvbGFyZmxhcmUuY29tPokCVAQTAQoAPhYhBP6NPgcKRj/Y X0yXQahue0sAy4m+BQJduvNYAhsDBQkB4TOABQsJCAcDBRUKCQgLBRYCAwEAAh4BAheAAAoJ EKhue0sAy4m+t3gP/j1MNc63CEozZo1IZ2UpVPAVWTYbLdPjIRdFqhlwvZYIgGIgIBk3ezKL K0/oc4ZeIwL6wQ5+V24ahuXvvcxLlKxfbJ6lo2iQGC7GLGhsDG9Y2k6sW13/sTJB/XuR2yov k5FtIgJ+aHa1PDZnepnGGOt9ka9n/Jzrc9WKYapOIIyLRe9U26ikoVgyqsD37PVeq5tLWHHA NGTUKupe9G6DFWidxx0KzyMoWDTbW2AWYcEmV2eQsgRT094AZwLFN5ErfefYzsGdO8TAUU9X YTiQN2MvP1pBxY/r0/5UfwV4UKBcR0S3ZvzyvrPoYER2Kxdf/qurx0Mn7StiCQ/JlNZb/GWQ TQ7huduuZHNQKWm7ufbqvKSfbPYvfl3akj7Wl8/zXhYdLqb5mmK45HXrgYGEqPN53OnK2Ngx IgYKEWr05KNv09097jLT5ONgYvszflqlLIzC4dV245g7ucuf9fYmsvmM1p/gFnOJBJL18YE5 P1fuGYNfLP+qp4WMiDqXlzaJfB4JcinyU49BXUj3Utd6f6sNBsO8YWcLbKBV9WmA324S3+wj f4NPRp3A5E+6OmTVMLWire2ZvnYp3YvifUj1r8lhoZ2B2vKuWwiTlHOKYBEjnOQJQnqYZEF0 JQQ1xzVDBQKE01BPlA3vy6BGWe6I4psBVqMOB9lAev/H+xa4u6Z3uQINBF269JsBEAC2KB3W 8JES/fh74avN7LOSdK4QA7gFIUQ4egVL81KnxquLzzilABuOhmZf3Rq6rMHSM8xmUAWa7Dkt YtzXStjEBI/uF0mAR3mMz1RcL2Wp+WD/15HjVpA7hPjXSEsWY0K2ymPerK4yrLcfFTHdMonY JfuACCC9NtOZxrWHOJoUS+RT7AWk80q/6D2iwQ47/2dBTznVG+gSeHSes9l91TB09w6f9JX/ sT+Ud0NQfm7HJ7t2pmGI9O6Po/NLZsDogmnIpJp/WwYOZN9JK7u2FyX2UyRzR8jK42aJkRsh DXs16Cc2/eYGakjrdO3x9a+RoxN7EuFtYhGR1PzMXdUiB5i+FyddYXkYUyO43QE/3VPA5l1v TUOagzZq6aONsdNonGJkV3TIG3JmUNtM+D/+r6QKzmgoJ8w576JxEZI09I/ZFN+g7BnUmlMx 6Z3IUOXVX/SWfGFga0YajwajHz03IBhChEbYbbqndVhmshu2GFURxrfUPYWdDXEqkh+08a5U Didia9jm2Opv4oE1e1TXAePyYJl/Zyps4Cv00GObAxibvMBQCUZQ+IBnNldRBOwXXRQV2xpx P+9iO1VYA/QXn0KqRK+SH1JGRXbJYi42YFaW1gE0EU0fiR2Wb9pK+doNEjjOhlzUGuvOEAUS +4m0m3dlfEvpCV9GMr7ERRpZzh9QkQARAQABiQI8BBgBCgAmFiEE/o0+BwpGP9hfTJdBqG57 SwDLib4FAl269JsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQqG57SwDLib7x6g//e+eCtNnJz7qFGbjWRJYNLCe5 gQwkhdyEGk4omr3VmjGj3z9kNFy/muh4pmHUngSAnnpwZggx14N4hhKf9y8G4Dwvsqa6b1zB Jq/c4t/SBDtGW4M/E331N04PaQZpcrbTfp1KqHNknk2N7yOk4CcoLVuIZmA5tPguASV8aAfz ZwhWAwn6vUEw9552eXEAnGFGDTCbyryNwzB5jtVQOEEDjTxcCkpcXMB45Tb1QUslRTu/sBAe HhPCQSUcJHR+KOq+P6yKICGAr291PZd6Qc7C3UyE+A3pY/UfdEVWj0STBWx1qvYLaHLrI4O9 KXDgh7luLjZZafcueCaPYmNo4V2lmNb3+7S4TvqhoZS+wN+9ldRQ4gH3wmRZybN6Y/ZCqxol RaZpE3AqdWsGvIgAkD0FpmtZNii9s2pnrhw0K6S4t4tYgXGTossxNSJUltfFQZdXM1xkZhtv dBZuUEectbZWuviGvQXahOMuH2pM64mx2hpdZzPcI2beeJNHkAsGT2KcaMETgvtHUBFRlLVB YxsUYz3UZmi2JSua4tbcGd6iWVN90eb8CxszYtivfpz6o2nPSjNwg0NaVGSHXjAK0tdByZ9t SkwjC3tEPljVycRSDpbauogOiAkvjENfaPd/H26V5hY822kaclaKDAW6ZG9UKiMijcAgb9u5 CJoOyqE8aGS5Ag0EXbr1RwEQAMXZHbafqmZiu6Kudp+Filgdkj2/XJva5Elv3fLfpXvhVt0Y if5Rzds3RpffoLQZk9nPwK8TbZFqNXPu7HSgg9AY7UdCM94WRFTkUCGKzbgiqGdXZ7Vyc8cy teGW+BcdfQycDvjfy50T3fO4kJNVp2LDNdknPaZVe8HJ80Od63+9ksB6Ni+EijMkh6Uk3ulB CSLnT4iFV57KgU2IsxOQVLnm+0bcsWMcCnGfphkY0yKP+aJ6MfmZkEeaDa7kf24N14ktg50m vOGDitcxA/+XXQXOsOIDJx1VeidxYsQ2FfsKu1G8+G6ejuaLf4rV5MI/+B/tfLbbOdikM5PF pxZVgTir9q13qHumMxdme7w5c7hybW412yWAe9TsrlXktFmFjRSFzAAxQhQSQxArS6db4oBk yeYJ59mW52i4occkimPWSm/raSgdSM+0P6zdWUlxxj+r1qiLgCYvruzLNtp5Nts5tR/HRQjE /ohQYaWDSVJEsc/4eGmgwzHzmvHtXeKkasn01381A1Lv3xwtpnfwERMAhxBZ8EGKEkc5gNdk vIPhknnGgPXqKmE1aWu8LcHiY+RHAF8gYPCDMuwyzBYnbiosKcicuIUp0Fj8XIaPao6F+WTi In4UOrqrYhsaCUvhVjsTBbNphGih9xbFJ8E+lkTLL8P3umtTcMPnpsB4xqcDABEBAAGJBHIE GAEKACYWIQT+jT4HCkY/2F9Ml0GobntLAMuJvgUCXbr1RwIbAgUJCWYBgAJACRCobntLAMuJ vsF0IAQZAQoAHRYhBNTYjdjWgdaEN5MrAN+9UR5r/4d3BQJduvVHAAoJEN+9UR5r/4d3EiQP /3lyby6v49HTU94Q2Fn2Xat6uifR7kWE5SO/1pUwYzx6v+z5K2jqPgqUYmuNoejcGl0CTNhg LbsxzUmAuf1OTAdE+ZYvOAjjKQhY4haxHc4enby/ltnHfWJYWJZ9UN5SsIQLvITvYu6rqthO CYjpXJhwkj3ODmC9H1TrvjrBGc6i7CTnR8RCjMEwCs2LI2frHa4R6imViEr9ScMfUnzdABMQ B0T5MOg8NX92/FRjTldU2KovG0ML9mSveSvVHAoEBLy4UIs5nEDdNiO1opJgKb5CXvWQugub 7AR52phNdKVdEB0S4tigJT4NalyTaPiUhFEm+CzZpMQDJ5E+/OowaPRfN4HeJX+c8sB+vUAZ mkAaG75N+IEk5JKFK9Z+bBYgPgaBDFZYdWDB/TMH0ANt+KI5uYg0i12TB4M8pwKG1DEPUmWc F2YpvB3jnbwzsOpSFiJOOlSs6nOB0Sb5GRtPOO3h6XGj+6mzQd6tcL63c9TrrUkjq7LDkxCz SJ2hTYRC8WNX8Uw9skWo5728JNrXdazEYCenUWmYiKLNKLslXCFodUCRDh/sUiyqRwS7PHEA LYC/UIWLMomI0Yvju3KA5v3RQVXhL+Gx2CzSj3GDz9xxGhJB2LfRfjzPbTR/Z27UpjCkd8z0 Ro3Ypmi1FLQwnRgoOKDbetTAIhugEShaLTITzJAP/iRDJCQsrZah5tE8oIl81qKEmBJEGcdt HYikbpQe7ydcXhqTj7+IECa3O7azI5OhCxUH2jNyonJ/phUslHH2G1TTBZK8y4Hrx5RpuRNS esn3P9uKu9DHqBAL7DMsCPwb2p1VNnapD72DBmRhzS/e6zS2R4+r9yNv03Hv7VCxKkmtE63H qpS//qpjfrtsIcHAjnKDaDtL1LYCtHoweI+DOpKKULSAYp/JE6F8LNibPQ0/P3S5ZIJNC4QZ uESjFOalJwFIqGQdkQB7ltRNJENLrHc+2jKGOuyFHm/Sbvp5EMGdaeQ0+u8CY0P+y6oXenwx 7WrJz/GvbNoFhJoJ6RzxCMQrFgxrssVZ7w5HcUj94lbnJ6osdYE/WpSd50B6jet6LKh5revg u9XI9CoqsPQ1V4wKYYdllPuogCye7KNYNKuiiuSNpaF4gHq1ZWGArwZtWHjgc2v3LegOpRQF SwOskMKmWsUyHIRMG1p8RpkBQTqY2rGSeUqPSvaqjT0nq+SUEM6qxEXD/2Wqri/X6bamuPDb S0PkBvFD2+0zr5Bc2YkMGPBYPNGZiTp3UjmZlLfn3TiBKIC92jherY563CULjSsiBEJCOSvv 4VPLn5aAcfbCXJnE3IGCp/hPl50iQqu7BPOYBbWXeb9ptDjGCAThNxSz0WAXkmcjAFE8gdE6 Znk9 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:59:39 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8032312.HfnmF1KY9p@xps> Content-Language: en-GB X-Originating-IP: [91.220.146.112] X-ClientProxiedBy: ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) To ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.5.1010-25050.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No-12.103300-4.000000-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: yebcs53SkkAeimh1YYHcKPZvT2zYoYOwC/ExpXrHizx/Z0SyQdcmEBGG Vq+vrXC0Pd2oN9YTLqK+FcXoOBWBynBMXDzOBdYCznQMa4gTGT1n0IHN1VEpzqsoAw12Y1UT07p DlxVt8yfSPfXVjYxwANjd1idfnob/DnSaJZoIQoya+cpJvTbSHOUTAxTwDY0oORiqyUGC3ia+mF UWJD5GAk/nLKNgiTMLGynFLWRIHZdCI2iUrGlequNI3Mct2lzaqWaMWrxmYY5+SLLtNOiBhhxSc gjK3TZJDUh1dbohm16EQMR4E0/LXS8ptaR5MzFyoS0guoV6SZcPo0vi0aZfNWAMM0WKD4asi7q7 kJ+Pw5rUIedtI748X8SySrZSy6ZkMdl2bvZ9hrPM0ihsfYPMYQ/o5bNHEsCTSg8ufp5n3T6RhNT qL5YWBWq1wXJZXzDatNvIx77SGgxEYzLu+ol3qS9cBNSlgvYqZZ9os8IryfqOv4+ca0bO05afVA SzR3JRRLaLX1r98/ZKA7EoXP+TGOjihKYrRZ6GLIRqQbCuh+7g02I3oyGU8OmUIoKlWHoQl8xIx ued0MDW+FG/KefCEar7ptY1S/JfIrOPJv+u+asMMH/Sbj9cxFJO8lLTUZOnhUJJUgOwLqi4XQER 51G1bcK47hIZepsdIhYnLNNF+lUl127V4j2o6nT7rnt3EYkYRElFv2Ob9BJw9p8oKhdgf+KBmU3 gxr+VZTpFaWvWEdXQBn1jsqNP77tBUAtfd6ph3tJaKJZJX/UYtWfVHZ1ZCkPFHPit9CNGtr5qJH A+0XrZGqTF5+VSYKwKT3da4nzl/VKd+1TPKc6eAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqC1B0Hk1Q1KyLUZxEAl FPo8/5N7y9QBAlPV0MNvRhH3T7A0HyOQoX7PmNwS44VbYJOFEOefyZCSVH/vDhdA5Z9f1obE6Mf JKqQpC2OeXEj57wbqa+/wXYJrNkwDqKz6sT1 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-TMASE-Result: 10--12.103300-4.000000 X-TMASE-Version: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.5.1010-25050.005 X-MDID: 1574161201-4s0i5_LjP9Dr Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: add flow action type update as an offload 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 11/19/19 12:50 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 19/11/2019 10:24, Andrew Rybchenko: >> On 11/8/19 4:30 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 08/11/2019 14:27, Andrew Rybchenko: >>>> On 11/8/19 4:17 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>> 08/11/2019 13:00, Andrew Rybchenko: >>>>>> On 11/8/19 2:03 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>>>> 08/11/2019 11:42, Andrew Rybchenko: >>>>>>>> On 11/8/19 1:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>>>>>> 08/11/2019 09:35, Andrew Rybchenko: >>>>>>>>>> The problem: >>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>>>> PMD wants to know before port start if application wants to >>>>>>>>>> to use flow MARK/FLAG in the future. It is required because: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. HW may be configured in a different way to reserve resources >>>>>>>>>> for MARK/FLAG delivery >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Datapath implementation choice may depend on it (e.g. vPMD >>>>>>>>>> is faster, but does not support MARK) >>>>>>>>> Thank you for the clear problem statement. >>>>>>>>> I agree with it. This is a real design issue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Discussed solutions: >>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>> May be it is not 100% clear since below are alternatives. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A. Explicit Rx offload suggested by the patch. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> B. Implicit by validation of a flow rule with MARK/FLAG actions used. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> C. Use dynamic field/flag (i.e. application registers dynamic field >>>>>>>>>> and/or flag and PMD uses lookup to solve the problem) plus part >>>>>>>>>> of (B) to discover if a feature is supported. >>>>>>>>> The dynamic field should be registered via a new API function >>>>>>>>> named '_init'. >>>>>>>>> It means the application must explicit request the feature. >>>>>>>>> I agree this is the way to go. >>>>>>>> If I understand your statement correctly, but (C) is not ideal since it >>>>>>>> looks global. If registered dynamic field of mbuf and is flag that >>>>>>>> the feature should be enabled, it is a flag to all ports/devices. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All solutions require changes in applications which use these >>>>>>>>>> features. There is a deprecation notice in place which advertises >>>>>>>>>> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_FLOW_MARK addition, but may be it is OK to substitute >>>>>>>>>> it with solution (B) or (C). Solution (C) requires changes since >>>>>>>>>> it should be combined with (B) in order to understand if >>>>>>>>>> the feature is supported. >>>>>>>>> I don't understand. >>>>>>>>> Application request and PMD support are two different things. >>>>>>>>> PMD support must be via rte_flow validation on a case by case anyway. >>>>>>>> I mean that application wants to understand if the feature is >>>>>>>> supported. Then, it wants to enable it. In the case of (B), >>>>>>>> if I understand the solution correctly, there is no explicit >>>>>>>> way to enable, PMD just detects it because of discovery is done >>>>>>>> (that's what I mean by "implicit" and it is a drawback from my >>>>>>>> point of view, but still could be considered). (C) solves the >>>>>>>> problem of (B). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Advantages and drawbacks of solutions: >>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>>>> 1. The main drawback of (A) is a "duplication" since we already >>>>>>>>>> have a way to request flow MARK using rte_flow API. >>>>>>>>>> I don't fully agree that it is a duplication, but I agree >>>>>>>>>> that it sounds like duplication and complicates a bit flow >>>>>>>>>> MARK usage by applications. (B) complicates it as well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. One more drawback of the solution (A) is the necessity of >>>>>>>>>> similar solution for META and it eats one more offload bit. >>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's true and I think it is not a problem. >>>>>>>>>> It would make it easier for applications to find out if >>>>>>>>>> either MARK or META is supported. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. The main advantage of the solution (A) is simplicity. >>>>>>>>>> It is simple for application to understand if it supported. >>>>>>>>>> It is simple in PMD to understand that it is required. >>>>>>>>>> It is simple to disable it - just reconfigure. >>>>>>>>>> Also it is easier to document it - just mention that >>>>>>>>>> the offload should be supported and enabled. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. The main advantage of the solution (B) is no "duplication". >>>>>>>>>> I agree that it is valid argument. Solving the problem >>>>>>>>>> without extra entities is always nice, but unfortunately >>>>>>>>>> it is too complex in this case. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. The main drawback of the solution (B) is the complexity. >>>>>>>>>> It is necessary to choose a flow rule which should be used >>>>>>>>>> as a criteria. It could be hardware dependent. >>>>>>>>>> Complex logic is require in PMD if it wants to address the >>>>>>>>>> problem and control MARK delivery based on validated flow >>>>>>>>>> rules. It adds dependency between start/stop processing and >>>>>>>>>> flow rules validation code. >>>>>>>>>> It is pretty complicated to document it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 6. Useless enabling of the offload in the case of solution (A) >>>>>>>>>> if really used flow rules do not support MARK looks like >>>>>>>>>> drawback as well, but easily mitigated by a combination >>>>>>>>>> with solution (B) and only required if the application wants >>>>>>>>>> to dive in the level of optimization and complexity and >>>>>>>>>> makes sense if application knows required flow rules in >>>>>>>>>> advance. So, it is not a problem in this case. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 7. Solution (C) has drawbacks of the solution (B) for >>>>>>>>>> applications to understand if these features are supported, >>>>>>>>>> but no drawbacks in PMD, since explicit criteria is used to >>>>>>>>>> enable/disable (dynamic field/flag lookup). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 8. Solution (C) is nice since it avoids "duplication". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 9. The main drawback of the solution (C) is asymmetry. >>>>>>>>>> As it was discussed in the case of RX_TIMESTAMP >>>>>>>>>> (if I remember it correctly): >>>>>>>>>> - PMD advertises RX_TIMESTAMP offload capability >>>>>>>>>> - application enables the offload >>>>>>>>>> - PMD registers dynamic field for timestamp >>>>>>>>>> Solution (C): >>>>>>>>>> - PMD advertises nothing >>>>>>>>>> - application uses solution (B) to understand if >>>>>>>>>> these features are supported >>>>>>>>>> - application registers dynamic field/flag >>>>>>>>>> - PMD does lookup and solve the problem >>>>>>>>>> The asymmetry could be partially mitigated if RX_TIMESTAMP >>>>>>>>>> solution is changed to require an application to register >>>>>>>>>> dynamic fields and PMD to do lookup if the offload is >>>>>>>>>> enabled. So, the only difference will be in no offload >>>>>>>>>> in the case of flow MARK/FLAG and usage of complex logic >>>>>>>>>> to understand if it is supported or no. >>>>>>>>>> May be it would be really good since it will allow to >>>>>>>>>> have dynamic fields registered before mempool population. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 10. Common drawback of solutions (B) and (C) is no granularity. >>>>>>>>>> Solution (A) may be per queue while (B) and (C) cannot be >>>>>>>>>> per queue. Moreover (C) looks global - for all devices. >>>>>>>>>> It could be really painful. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (C) is nice, but I still vote for simplicity and >>>>>>>>>> granularity of (A). >>>>>>>>> I vote for clear separation of application needs and PMD support, >>>>>>>>> by using the method C (dynamic fields). >>>>>>>>> I agree timestamp must use the same path. >>>>>>>>> I agree it's complicate because we don't know in advance whether >>>>>>>>> a flow rule will be accepted, but that's the reality, config is complex. >>>>>>>> Do you think that global nature of the (C) is acceptable? >>>>>>> That's a good question. >>>>>>> Maybe the feature request should be per port. >>>>>>> In this case, we are back to solution A with a flag per port? >>>>>> Offloads are natively per-queue as well, so (A) keeps the choice >>>>>> between per-port vs per-queue to PMDs as usual. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that A and C will not guarantee that the offload will be possible. >>>>>> Yes, definitely. >>>>>> >>>>>>> We need B (flow rule validation) anyway. >>>>>> Strictly speaking (B) (checking flow rules before device >>>>>> startup) is required if an application can predict flow >>>>>> rules and wants to ensure that MARK offload will be usable. >>>>>> Otherwise, it may be skipped. >>>>> No no, I mean flow rule validation MUST be used anyway >>>>> during the runtime before applying a rule. >>>>> I agree it is hard to predict. I speak only about real rules. >>>> OK, I see. Of course, flow rule validation is required at runtime. >>>> I was rather concentrated on the stated problem solutions. >>>> >>>>>>> It seems A, B, C are not alternatives but all required >>>>>>> as pieces of a puzzle... >>>>>> Unfortunately true in the most complex case. >>>>>> Right now it will be A with B if required as explained above. >>>>>> C will come a bit later when the field migrates to dynamic. >>>>>> >>>>>> May be it is even better if application registers dynamic >>>>>> fields before an attempt to enable offload to be sure that >>>>>> it will not fail because of impossibility to register >>>>>> dynamic field (lack of space). I'm not sure, but it is not >>>>>> not that important. >>>>> Yes of course, lack of mbuf space is another reason for >>>>> disabling the feature. >>>>> >>>>>> If we finally go way A, should we add offloads for META back? >>>>>> I guess separate Rx and Tx are required. >>>>> I would prefer to add it as dynamic flags. >>>>> Why rushing on a very temporary solution while it is not a new issue? >>>> Basically it means that we go just (B)+(C) in the case of META. >>>> I have no strong opinion but thought that it could be better to >>>> align the solution. Of course, we can wait with it. As I understand >>>> META is an experimental feature. >>> Yes it is experimental and I think it is too late to align now. >>> >>> Anyway, we will probably to discuss again these offloads TAG/MARK/META, >>> as requested by several people. >>> >> The series implements (A) to help to solve the problem described above. >> What is the fate of the series in v19.11 in accordance with the >> discussion? > I am against adding anything related to a feature union'ed in mbuf. > The feature must move to dynamic field first. > > In addition, such capability is very weak. > I am not sure it is a good idea to have some weak capabilities, > meaning a feature could be available but not in all cases. > I think we should discuss more generally how we want to handle > the rte_flow capabilities conveniently and reliably. It is really unexpected outcome from the above discussion. It is just possibility to deliver and handle marks on datapath and request to have it. It says almost nothing about rte_flow rules supported etc. I'll be happy to take part in the discussion. > So regarding 19.11, as this feature is not new, it can wait 20.02. OK, it is not critical for me, so I don't mind, however, I've seen patches which try to use it [1] except net/octeontx2 in the second patch of the series. [1] https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/62415/