From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: "Bie, Tiwei" <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com" <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
"Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
"Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
"olivier.matz@6wind.com" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"thomas.monjalon@6wind.com" <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
"Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
"Dai, Wei" <wei.dai@intel.com>,
"Wang, Xiao W" <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/8] ethdev: reserve capability flags for PMD-specific API
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:44:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F100375@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170104170011.GB56511@dpdk19>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bie, Tiwei
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 5:00 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara@intel.com>;
> olivier.matz@6wind.com; thomas.monjalon@6wind.com; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>; Dai, Wei <wei.dai@intel.com>; Wang,
> Xiao W <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] ethdev: reserve capability flags for PMD-specific API
>
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 11:14:25PM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bie, Tiwei
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 2:39 PM
> > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Mcnamara, John
> <john.mcnamara@intel.com>;
> > > olivier.matz@6wind.com; thomas.monjalon@6wind.com; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>; Dai, Wei <wei.dai@intel.com>;
> Wang,
> > > Xiao W <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] ethdev: reserve capability flags for PMD-specific API
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 10:21:08PM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > > Hi Twei,
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Bie, Tiwei
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 7:22 AM
> > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Cc: adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara@intel.com>;
> > > > > olivier.matz@6wind.com; thomas.monjalon@6wind.com; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin
> > > > > <helin.zhang@intel.com>; Dai, Wei <wei.dai@intel.com>; Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH v5 3/8] ethdev: reserve capability flags for PMD-specific API
> > > > >
> > > > > Reserve a Tx capability flag and a Rx capability flag, that can be
> > > > > used by PMD to define its own capability flags when implementing the
> > > > > PMD-specific API.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggested-by: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 2 ++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > > > > index d465825..8800b39 100644
> > > > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
> > > > > @@ -857,6 +857,7 @@ struct rte_eth_conf {
> > > > > #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_LRO 0x00000010
> > > > > #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_QINQ_STRIP 0x00000020
> > > > > #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM 0x00000040
> > > > > +#define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 0x00000080 /**< Used for PMD-specific API. */
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * TX offload capabilities of a device.
> > > > > @@ -874,6 +875,7 @@ struct rte_eth_conf {
> > > > > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_GRE_TNL_TSO 0x00000400 /**< Used for tunneling packet. */
> > > > > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPIP_TNL_TSO 0x00000800 /**< Used for tunneling packet. */
> > > > > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_GENEVE_TNL_TSO 0x00001000 /**< Used for tunneling packet. */
> > > > > +#define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 0x00002000 /**< Used for PMD-specific API. */
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * Ethernet device information
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.7.4
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure how that supposed to work and how user should know that DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0
> > > > is actually a MACSEC for ixgbe?
> > >
> > > Users are not supposed to use DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0, instead, they
> > > should use the capabilities and the likes defined in rte_pmd_ixgbe.h
> > > where the PMD-specifics APIs are declared:
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * If these flags are advertised by the PMD, the NIC supports the MACsec
> > > * offload. The incoming MACsec traffics can be offloaded transparently
> > > * after the MACsec offload is configured correctly by the application.
> > > * And the application can set the PKT_TX_IXGBE_MACSEC flag in mbufs to
> > > * enable the MACsec offload for the packets to be transmitted.
> > > */
> > > #define DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_IXGBE_MACSEC_STRIP DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0
> > > #define DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IXGBE_MACSEC_INSERT DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * This event will occur when the PN counter in a MACsec connection
> > > * reach the exhaustion threshold.
> > > */
> > > #define RTE_ETH_EVENT_IXGBE_MACSEC RTE_ETH_EVENT_RESERVED_0
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * Offload the MACsec. This flag must be set by the application in mbuf
> > > * to enable this offload feature for a packet to be transmitted.
> > > */
> > > #define PKT_TX_IXGBE_MACSEC PKT_TX_RESERVED_0
> > >
> > > PMD-specific APIs can only be used on the corresponding driver/device,
> > > so different PMD can share the same reserved bit to represent different
> > > things when implementing their own PMD-specific APIs.
> >
> > Ok, and why do we need it?
> > Why we can't just have PKT_TX_MACSEC straightway?
> > What are you trying to gain here?
> > Is it just for future opportunity to save an extra bit in mbuf.ol_flags?
> > I don't think we are short of bits here right now, and we don't consume them exra-fast
> > to start to worry about it.
> > Again, if it *really* would be for ixgbe only forever, and y don't want to waste a bit in tx_olflags,
> > why not to introduce device specific ol_flags in mbuf second cache line?
> > Probably uint16_t would be enough for that.
> >
> > >
> > > > Another question what to do if you would like to create a bonded device over two devices with different NIC types?
> > > > As I understand you can end up in situation when DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 would mean different capabilities.
> > > > Why not to have this MACSEC capability and ol_flag value as generic ones, as you have them in previous versions of your patch?
> > >
> > > Those flags are only used in PMD-specific APIs. I don't think we could
> > > use the PMD-specific APIs provided by a certain PMD on a bonded device.
> >
> > I understand that.
> > My question was: suppose user would like to create a bonded device over 2 NICs.
> > One of them is ixgbe, while other would be some other type.
> > In future get_dev_info() for each of them might return DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RESERVED_0 bit as set.
> > But it would mean completely different thing.
> > How bonded device would know that to deal properly?
> >
> > Another example - user has 2 NICs of different type and would like to send the same packet on both of them simultaneously.
> > As PKT_TX_RESERVED might mean different things for these devices, and user would like to use let say
> > PKT_TX_IXGBE_MACSEC on one of them, he would need to do a copy of them, instead just increment a refcnt.
> >
> > Similar issues might arise at RX handling: user got a packet with PKT_RX_RESERVED_0 set.
> > What does it really mean if there are different NIC types in the system?
> > The only way to answer that question, as I can see, is to keep track from what NIC that packet was received.
> > Which I suppose, is not always convenient.
> >
>
> The main purpose is to put the PMD-specific APIs in a separate
> namespace instead of mixing the PMD-specific APIs and global APIs
> up, and also save the bits in mbuf.ol_flags.
>
> There are other ways to achieve this goal, such as introducing
> the PMD specific ol_flags in mbuf second cache line as you said.
> I just thought defining some reserved bits seems to be the most
> simple way which won't introduce many changes.
>
> What's your suggestions? Should I just revert the changes and
> define the generic flags directly?
Yes, that would be my preference.
As I said above - spending extra bit in ol_flags doesn't look like a big problem to me.
In return there would be no need to consider how to handle all that confusing scenarios in future.
Konstantin
>
> Thanks & regards,
> Tiwei Bie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-04 17:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-03 14:59 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] Add MACsec offload support for ixgbe Tiwei Bie
2016-12-03 14:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] lib: add MACsec offload flags Tiwei Bie
2016-12-03 14:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] net/ixgbe: add MACsec offload support Tiwei Bie
2016-12-03 14:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] app/testpmd: add ixgbe " Tiwei Bie
2016-12-16 1:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] Add MACsec offload support for ixgbe Tiwei Bie
2016-12-16 1:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] lib: add MACsec offload flags Tiwei Bie
2016-12-16 1:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] net/ixgbe: add MACsec offload support Tiwei Bie
2016-12-16 1:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] app/testpmd: add ixgbe " Tiwei Bie
2016-12-16 1:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] doc: add ixgbe specific APIs Tiwei Bie
2016-12-16 10:29 ` Mcnamara, John
2016-12-25 14:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] Add MACsec offload support for ixgbe Tiwei Bie
2016-12-25 14:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] mbuf: add flag for MACsec Tiwei Bie
2016-12-25 14:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/6] ethdev: add event type " Tiwei Bie
2016-12-25 14:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/6] ethdev: add MACsec offload capability flags Tiwei Bie
2016-12-25 14:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/6] net/ixgbe: add MACsec offload support Tiwei Bie
2016-12-25 14:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 5/6] app/testpmd: add MACsec offload commands Tiwei Bie
2016-12-25 14:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] doc: add ixgbe specific APIs Tiwei Bie
2016-12-26 15:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] Add MACsec offload support for ixgbe Adrien Mazarguil
2016-12-27 1:33 ` Tiwei Bie
2016-12-27 14:37 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2016-12-27 17:42 ` Tiwei Bie
2016-12-28 15:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/7] " Tiwei Bie
2016-12-28 15:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/7] mbuf: reserve a Tx offload flag for PMD-specific API Tiwei Bie
2016-12-28 15:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/7] ethdev: reserve an event type " Tiwei Bie
2016-12-28 15:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/7] ethdev: reserve capability flags " Tiwei Bie
2016-12-28 15:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/7] net/ixgbe: add MACsec offload support Tiwei Bie
2016-12-28 15:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 5/7] app/testpmd: add MACsec offload commands Tiwei Bie
2016-12-28 15:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 6/7] doc: add ixgbe specific APIs Tiwei Bie
2016-12-28 15:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 7/7] doc: update the release notes for the reserved flags Tiwei Bie
2017-01-03 6:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/7] Add MACsec offload support for ixgbe Lu, Wenzhuo
2017-01-04 7:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/8] " Tiwei Bie
2017-01-04 7:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/8] mbuf: reserve a Tx offload flag for PMD-specific API Tiwei Bie
2017-01-04 7:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/8] ethdev: reserve an event type " Tiwei Bie
2017-01-04 7:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/8] ethdev: reserve capability flags " Tiwei Bie
2017-01-04 14:21 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-04 14:39 ` Tiwei Bie
2017-01-04 15:14 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-04 17:00 ` Tiwei Bie
2017-01-04 17:44 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2017-01-04 23:56 ` Tiwei Bie
2017-01-05 8:33 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-01-05 10:05 ` Tiwei Bie
2017-01-05 11:32 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-05 18:21 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-01-08 12:39 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-09 3:57 ` Tiwei Bie
2017-01-09 11:26 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-01-10 2:08 ` Tiwei Bie
2017-01-11 17:32 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-01-12 2:08 ` Tiwei Bie
2017-01-12 2:42 ` Yuanhan Liu
2017-01-09 14:41 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-01-04 7:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/8] net/ixgbe: add MACsec offload support Tiwei Bie
2017-01-04 7:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/8] app/testpmd: add MACsec offload commands Tiwei Bie
2017-01-04 7:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/8] doc: add ixgbe specific APIs Tiwei Bie
2017-01-04 7:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/8] doc: update the release notes for the reserved flags Tiwei Bie
2017-01-04 7:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 8/8] doc: add MACsec offload into NIC feature list Tiwei Bie
2017-01-04 8:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/8] Add MACsec offload support for ixgbe Peng, Yuan
2017-01-11 4:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/6] " Tiwei Bie
2017-01-11 4:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/6] mbuf: add flag for MACsec Tiwei Bie
2017-01-11 17:41 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-01-11 4:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/6] ethdev: add event type " Tiwei Bie
2017-01-11 4:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/6] ethdev: add MACsec offload capability flags Tiwei Bie
2017-01-11 4:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 4/6] net/ixgbe: add MACsec offload support Tiwei Bie
2017-01-11 4:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 5/6] app/testpmd: add MACsec offload commands Tiwei Bie
2017-01-13 9:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-01-13 9:16 ` Tiwei Bie
2017-01-11 4:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 6/6] doc: add ixgbe specific APIs Tiwei Bie
2017-01-13 11:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/6] Add MACsec offload support for ixgbe Tiwei Bie
2017-01-13 11:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/6] mbuf: add flag for MACsec Tiwei Bie
2017-01-13 11:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 2/6] ethdev: add event type " Tiwei Bie
2017-01-16 2:31 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-13 11:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 3/6] ethdev: add MACsec offload capability flags Tiwei Bie
2017-01-16 2:33 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-13 11:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 4/6] net/ixgbe: add MACsec offload support Tiwei Bie
2017-01-13 11:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 5/6] app/testpmd: add MACsec offload commands Tiwei Bie
2017-01-13 11:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 6/6] doc: add ixgbe specific APIs Tiwei Bie
2017-01-15 18:19 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/6] Add MACsec offload support for ixgbe Thomas Monjalon
2017-01-23 2:30 ` Peng, Yuan
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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F100375@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=helin.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=tiwei.bie@intel.com \
--cc=wei.dai@intel.com \
--cc=wenzhuo.lu@intel.com \
--cc=xiao.w.wang@intel.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).