From: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
To: Alex Rosenbaum <rosenbaumalex@gmail.com>
Cc: "adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com" <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
DPDK <dev@dpdk.org>, "Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/5] ether: add flow action to redirect packet in a switch domain
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:20:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E7061153123F75@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFgAxU8EgEYoWbyO0GOEmtZ9SEc9APsZ8puTBvd9tt_iRCqv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Rosenbaum [mailto:rosenbaumalex@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 8:37 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> Cc: adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com; DPDK <dev@dpdk.org>; Doherty, Declan
> <declan.doherty@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/5] ether: add flow action to redirect packet
> in a switch domain
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com> wrote:
> > Add action RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SWITCH_PORT, it can be used to
> > redirect
>
> I guess the word "SWITCH" should be remove from commit message. you
> don't use it later in the patch.
Yes, it should be corrected.
>
>
> >
> > +Action: ``PORT``
> > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > +
> > +Redirect packets to an interface that connect to the same switch domain.
> > +
> > +The destination should be managed by a rte_ethdev instance, port_id
> > +is the identification of the destination. A typical use case is to
> > +define a flow that redirect packet to an interface that managed by a
> > +Port Representor.
>
>
> A verbs would be better suited for an ACTION_TYPE. while ".._TYPE_PORT" is
> a nous.
> Probably ".._TYPE_REDIRECT" would better fit here.
> See man tc-mirred as referance:
> http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/tc-mirred.8.html
I agree it will be better to use verbs for action, so we can have TYPE_REDIRECT_TO_PORT/VF/PF...,
But since we already have ACTION_TYPE_VF, ACTION_TYPE_PF ...
Maybe it's better just to follow the same pattern?
>
> Do we want to distinguish between different destination type?
> The target might be a port (port_id) or potencial other destinations/queue.
> So maybe use ".._TYPE_REDIRECT_TO_PORT"?
>
> Anyway, I think you should remove the "same switch domain" from docs
> since there is no switch domain yet in DPDK.
> Lets let the PMD decided if this sucessed or fails, based on the target type
> and other HW limitations. Not just based on switch domain.
Yes, it's not necessary to be specific here, the new action is just add the semantic
to support packet redirect between port that managed by etherdevs, device driver
can figure out the way or just reject it.
I will capture this in v3.
>
> PS: I agree switch domain needs to be introduced. I don't think port
> representor is the correct direction.
OK, thanks for your sharing, I think this can be discussed more on Port Representor mail list
>
> Alex
Thanks
Qi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-22 8:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-21 2:35 [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 0/5] rte_flow extension for vSwitch acceleration Qi Zhang
2017-12-21 2:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/5] ether: add flow action to redirect packet in a switch domain Qi Zhang
2017-12-21 12:37 ` Alex Rosenbaum
2017-12-22 8:20 ` Zhang, Qi Z [this message]
2017-12-22 22:10 ` Alex Rosenbaum
2017-12-21 2:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 2/5] ether: add flow last hit query support Qi Zhang
2017-12-21 2:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 3/5] ether: Add flow timeout support Qi Zhang
2017-12-21 13:59 ` Alex Rosenbaum
2017-12-22 9:03 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2017-12-22 14:06 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-01-14 2:03 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2017-12-22 22:26 ` Alex Rosenbaum
2017-12-26 3:28 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2017-12-26 7:44 ` Alex Rosenbaum
2017-12-21 2:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 4/5] ether: add more protocol support in rte_flow Qi Zhang
2017-12-21 2:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 5/5] ether: add packet modification aciton " Qi Zhang
2017-12-21 13:01 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 0/5] rte_flow extension for vSwitch acceleration Alex Rosenbaum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly 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=039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E7061153123F75@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=declan.doherty@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=rosenbaumalex@gmail.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).