From: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>,
"NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL)" <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>,
Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>,
"ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru" <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>,
"ferruh.yigit@amd.com" <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC] ethdev: sharing indirect actions between ports
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:15:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <MW2PR12MB46662971E2A54DE5073D0C12D6CF9@MW2PR12MB4666.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <22e1d57d-37bd-2eae-4347-79147f644c27@oktetlabs.ru>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
> Sent: Friday, 20 January 2023 14:23
>
> On 1/18/23 19:37, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 6:22 PM
> >> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam
> >> <orika@nvidia.com>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; Raslan
> Darawsheh
> >> <rasland@nvidia.com>; andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru;
> >> ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru; ferruh.yigit@amd.com
> >> Subject: Re: [RFC] ethdev: sharing indirect actions between ports
> >>
> >> 18/01/2023 16:17, Ori Kam:
> >>> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >>>> 28/12/2022 17:54, Viacheslav Ovsiienko:
> >>>>> The RTE Flow API implements the concept of shared objects, known
> >>>>> as indirect actions (RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_INDIRECT).
> >>>>> An application can create the indirect action of desired type and
> >>>>> configuration with rte_flow_action_handle_create call and then
> >>>>> specify the obtained action handle in multiple flows.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The initial concept supposes the action handle has strict
> >>>>> attachment to the port it was created on and to be used
> >>>>> exclusively in the flows being installed on the port.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nowadays the multipath network topologies are quite common,
> >>>>> packets belonging to the same connection might arrive and be sent
> >>>>> over multiple ports, and there is the raising demand to handle
> >>>>> these "spread" connections. To fulfil this demand it is proposed
> >>>>> to extend indirect action sharing across the multiple ports. This
> >>>>> kind of sharing would be extremely useful for the meters and
> >>>>> counters, allowing to manage the single connection over the
> >>>>> multiple ports.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This cross-port object sharing is hard to implement in generic way
> >>>>> merely with software on the upper layers, but can be provided by
> >>>>> the driver over the single hardware instance, where multiple
> >>>>> ports reside on the same physical NIC and share the same hardware
> >>>>> context.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To allow this action sharing application should specify the "host
> >>>>> port" during flow configuring to claim the intention to share the
> >>>>> indirect actions. All indirect actions reside within "host port"
> >>>>> context and can be shared in flows being installed
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't like the word "host" because it may refer to the host CPU.
> >>>> Also if I understand well, the application must choose one port
> >>>> between all ports of the NIC and keep using the same.
> >>>> I guess we don't want to create a NIC id.
> >>>> So I would suggest to rename to nic_ref_port or something like that.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I think that host is the correct word since this port hosts all
> >>> resources for other ports. (this is also why the host is used in case
> >>> of CPU 😊)
> >>> I don't think it is correct to use bad wording due to the fact that
> >>> some one else also uses this word.
> >>> in rte_flow we never talk about host CPU so I don't think this is
> confusing.
> >>
> >> The confusion is that we can think of a port on the host.
> >
> > In my humble opinion, "_port_id" suffix explicitly specifies what field is and
> does not leave
> > too much space for confusion.
> >
> > "root_port_id"? "base_port_id"? "container_port_id" ? "mgmnt_port_id"
> ?
> > Looks worse as for me and does not reflect the exact meaning.
> > As Ori mentioned this is DPDK port ID that embraces all the shared actions.
> > It plays a host role for them.
>
> Maybe 'owner_port_id' or 'rsrc_port_id' ?
>
Rsrc?
Owner_port looks O.K but I'm not sure what is the issue with the original suggestion.
Best,
Ori
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-26 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-28 16:54 Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-01-08 14:20 ` Ori Kam
2023-01-18 12:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-18 15:17 ` Ori Kam
2023-01-18 16:21 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-01-18 16:37 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2023-01-20 12:22 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2023-01-26 15:15 ` Ori Kam [this message]
2023-02-06 9:52 ` [PATCH 1/9] " Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-06 9:52 ` [PATCH 2/9] net/mlx5/hws: Matcher, Free FT from RTC id before set the new value Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-06 9:52 ` [PATCH 3/9] net/mlx5/hws: fix disconnecting matcher Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-06 9:52 ` [PATCH 4/9] common/mlx5: add cross port object sharing capability Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-06 9:52 ` [PATCH 5/9] net/mlx5: add cross port shared mode for HW steering Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-06 9:52 ` [PATCH 6/9] net/mlx5: support counters in cross port shared mode Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-06 9:52 ` [PATCH 7/9] app/testpmd: add host port parameter into flow config Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-06 9:52 ` [PATCH 8/9] app/testpmd: add shared indirect action support Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-06 9:52 ` [PATCH 9/9] doc: update cross-port indirect shared action Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-07 14:01 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] ethdev: sharing indirect actions between ports Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-07 14:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] app/testpmd: add host port parameter into flow config Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-09 14:48 ` Ori Kam
2023-02-07 14:02 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] app/testpmd: add shared indirect action support Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-09 14:48 ` Ori Kam
2023-02-07 14:02 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] net/mlx5/hws: free FT from RTC id before set the new value Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-07 14:02 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] net/mlx5/hws: fix disconnecting matcher Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-07 14:02 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] common/mlx5: add cross port object sharing capability Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-07 14:02 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] net/mlx5: add cross port shared mode for HW steering Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-07 14:02 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] net/mlx5: support counters in cross port shared mode Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-07 14:02 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] doc: update cross-port indirect shared action Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-09 14:49 ` Ori Kam
2023-02-10 14:35 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-02-08 12:21 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] ethdev: sharing indirect actions between ports Ori Kam
2023-02-09 14:47 ` Ori Kam
2023-02-10 14:34 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-02-10 14:38 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2023-02-10 15:17 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] *ethdev: sharing indirect actions between port* Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-10 15:17 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] ethdev: sharing indirect actions between ports Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-10 15:17 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] app/testpmd: add host port parameter into flow config Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-10 15:17 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] app/testpmd: add shared indirect action support Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-10 23:02 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] *ethdev: sharing indirect actions between port* Ferruh Yigit
2023-02-13 13:37 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] net/mlx5: sharing indirect actions between port Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-13 13:37 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] net/mlx5/hws: free FT from RTC ID before set the new value Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-13 13:37 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] net/mlx5/hws: fix disconnecting matcher Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-13 13:37 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] common/mlx5: add cross port object sharing capability Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-13 13:37 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] net/mlx5: add cross port shared mode for HW steering Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-13 13:37 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] net/mlx5: support counters in cross port shared mode Viacheslav Ovsiienko
2023-02-15 13:29 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] net/mlx5: sharing indirect actions between port Raslan Darawsheh
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=MW2PR12MB46662971E2A54DE5073D0C12D6CF9@MW2PR12MB4666.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
--to=orika@nvidia.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
--cc=ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=matan@nvidia.com \
--cc=rasland@nvidia.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=viacheslavo@nvidia.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).