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 AF875A0526; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:05:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76ED81DBCB; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:05:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA36A1DA8B for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:05:12 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: HOBPqUw9lZ9WDJ6Lg0o51ieIKcSk2XaH8kYawr7pCG+p02g3epP24LtyHq3Cmy6dZobwBrWnrE MUS0YQJRlQLg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9675"; a="232642373" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,327,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="232642373" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jul 2020 05:05:11 -0700 IronPort-SDR: Uod0wJh42UPe/fUxd5WGupsb7bOfKLepwJ33nZ+T0SQ9FqdJQGbalWWnxGedRs7Ns9WMcCylRt dljGdp1Zc3Dw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,327,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="315849561" Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2020 05:05:11 -0700 Received: from FMSMSX110.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.10) by fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 05:05:11 -0700 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.154) by fmsmsx110.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 05:05:10 -0700 Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.22]) by shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.43]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 20:05:07 +0800 From: "Zhang, Qi Z" To: Thomas Monjalon , "Xing, Beilei" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Guo, Jia" , "Guo, Junfeng" , "Su, Simei" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" , "viacheslavo@mellanox.com" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , "ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com" , "orika@mellanox.com" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: add new RSS types for IPv6 prefix Thread-Index: AQHWQ7a011zWOy0smEWiQz0KNMS5A6j7j+KAgAIBrwD//31JgIAAiJug//+YyoCAAIdUMA== Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 12:05:07 +0000 Message-ID: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611548584E5@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <20200612080711.39774-1-junfeng.guo@intel.com> <2168344.3qRs3v1SFd@thomas> <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E7061154858443@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <5246418.gzuaxCN7mb@thomas> In-Reply-To: <5246418.gzuaxCN7mb@thomas> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.2.0.6 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: add new RSS types for IPv6 prefix 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" Archived-At: List-Archive: > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:57 PM > To: Xing, Beilei ; Zhang, Qi Z > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Guo, Jia ; Guo, Junfeng > ; Su, Simei ; Yigit, Ferruh > ; arybchenko@solarflare.com; > viacheslavo@mellanox.com; jerinj@marvell.com; > ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com; orika@mellanox.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: add new RSS types for IPv6 > prefix >=20 > 08/07/2020 13:10, Zhang, Qi Z: > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > 08/07/2020 11:45, Zhang, Qi Z: > > > > On 2020/7/7 19:06, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 16/06/2020 10:16, Junfeng Guo: > > > > >> This patch defines new RSS offload types for IPv6 prefix with > > > > >> 32, 48, > > > > >> 64 bits of both SRC and DST IPv6 address. > > > > >> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo > > > > >> --- > > > > >> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 51 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > >> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+) > > > > >> > > > > >> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > > > > >> b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h index 631b146bd..5a7ba36d8 > > > > >> 100644 > > > > >> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > > > > >> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > > > > >> @@ -538,6 +538,9 @@ struct rte_eth_rss_conf { > > > > >> #define ETH_RSS_L4_DST_ONLY (1ULL << 60) > > > > >> #define ETH_RSS_L2_SRC_ONLY (1ULL << 59) > > > > >> #define ETH_RSS_L2_DST_ONLY (1ULL << 58) > > > > >> +#define ETH_RSS_L3_PRE32 (1ULL << 57) > > > > >> +#define ETH_RSS_L3_PRE48 (1ULL << 56) > > > > >> +#define ETH_RSS_L3_PRE64 (1ULL << 55) > > > > > > > > > > PRE32, 48 and 64 are not obvious. > > > > > Why is it needed? > > > > > > > > there is typical usage for NAT64, which use 32 bit prefix for IPv6 > > > > addresses, in this case flows over IPv4 and IPv6 will result in > > > > the same hash value, as well as 48, 64, which also have some > > > > corresponding use cases, > > > > > At least, please add comments for the values of this API. > > > > > > > > sure, we will add more comments. > > > > > Do we want to continue with the RTE_ prefix missing? > > > > > Can't we add the prefix for the new values? > > > > > > I think you misunderstood this question. I am asking to change the > > > name > > > ETH_RSS_L3_PRE32 to RTE_ETH_RSS_L3_PRE32 > > > > OK, we are going change all the ETH_RSS_xxx to RTE_ETH_RSS_xxx, or just > the new values? > > the first option looks make sense to me. >=20 > You cannot break compatibility with the existing values, but you can prov= ide > an alias to preserve compatibility. I will prefer the rename / alias can be done in a seperate patch for a sing= le purpose. >=20 > > > > 32, 48, 64 are typical usage, and consider suffix pair we may add > > > > later, it will cost 6 bits so far we still have 27 bit left, so > > > > it looks like will not be a problem in following couple releases. > > > > > > Having some space left is not a reason to waste it :) If I > > > understand well, there is no standard for this API. > > > You are assigning some bits to some usage. > > > I don't find it generic and flexible enough. > > > > Actually IPv6 address prefix is in spec, please check below RFC. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6052#page-5 >=20 > Quoting the RFC: > " > the prefix shall be either the "Well-Known Prefix" > or a "Network-Specific Prefix" unique to the organization > deploying the address translators. > The prefixes can only have one of the following lengths: > 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, or 96. > (The Well-Known Prefix is 96 bits long, and can only be used > in the last form of the table.) > " >=20 > So 40 and 56 are missing. Yes, like to add and lets accelerate the progress to abandon the old APIs := ) >=20 > > So probably we are not wasting bits here, since this is a typical > > usage that DPDK can provide. > > Of cause more description is needed in the code here. > > > > > If you want to limit the size of the match, we should have a generic > > > syntax to choose how many bits of the IPv6 address are taken into > > > account for RSS. Or maybe an IPv6 mask. > > > > Yes, I believe at some moment, a more generic solution is mandatory, > > And I think that will not work if we stick on the 64 bits, new API > > need to be introduced and old one should be abandoned > > > > > > > > > but anyway use 64 bits to represent RSS inputset can't meet the > > > > coming complex RSS usage, we may need to figure out some new APIs > > > > and > > > abandon > > > > the old one. > > > > A stacked protocol layer with bit field selector in each layer is > > > > under consideration, hope we can contribute some RFC at some > moment. > > > > also feel free let us know your thought. > > > > > > My thought is to discuss how to fit this need in future and avoid > > > adding few bits of temporary workaround. > > > API definition is serious and we must avoid temporary half solutions. >=20 >=20