From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
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 <dev@dpdk.org>; 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" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, "Xing, Beilei"
<beilei.xing@intel.com>
CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Guo, Jia" <jia.guo@intel.com>, "Guo,
Junfeng" <junfeng.guo@intel.com>, "Su, Simei" <simei.su@intel.com>, "Yigit,
Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "arybchenko@solarflare.com"
<arybchenko@solarflare.com>, "viacheslavo@mellanox.com"
<viacheslavo@mellanox.com>, "jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com" <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
"orika@mellanox.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 <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:57 PM
> To: Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.c=
om>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Guo, Jia <jia.guo@intel.com>; Guo, Junfeng
> <junfeng.guo@intel.com>; Su, Simei <simei.su@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
> <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; 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 <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > 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 <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> > > > >> ---
> > > > >> 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