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 712EBA0526; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:26:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2858F1DB54; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:26:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC751DB51 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:26:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D8958024E; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 08:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 08 Jul 2020 08:26:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= /ednUGcK9a3XoyjoQodw8CPk6X2KcCIyQlWiuLRV0DE=; b=lxiLh3bf0RatsxYS /h3X3t97x30YKT9BGSCPmcxYdnkymsHyLEnh4S+BihwLh/e9kHVlgffnGaWFKUsF hhs2JphpIKYyZ2AwoNGhslbyD0y/ImI1njecBGG/lpoWJhuIspCA9YCfuknfwivV Nq6LA/q0KzFPUcDzuMWSdiwhQXv+DRTGEloC770GnZJuWv9fynodW1JdHZMFBhN3 V0laaO5o+SS7eXbMOJu7ZxFvi8IOJXrA+VrHZ8cXrWVFXM6DWj+6vU1Q3w1dHEt8 vCYBmCaNf2BcSnLmAPeJ9uhuV5TNtMtZ/kKPQ89cLDvSc0NmflKOFKvcVE2AWbXW rLdGVw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=/ednUGcK9a3XoyjoQodw8CPk6X2KcCIyQlWiuLRV0 DE=; b=JxvfaWTjeK8phKtXbIVgatC721nf5enA4PTI8HFjYE9+wm49Z8Cighuqj 5aiFPAT/9l8FEUKETLDGTcOLkvJBbOCZKpQP1X2J0PPm2iJtKIib5f+fF1z0rJni EMzJNIJKJFOHoq1AbTB73FFuCN0bUTL7Wn9LRJC2rvj/+wM41bi8layJ8nVRXPlz jJsMNWUJmKgL2noqyk1WgRWNRdORONfWMA5pD517tycsUHRA5eez5tDu+0UU+Cdz hBxSwFoBGSnuoqOIvz9yXo5pTkYhPgtWIT1IN6yYQ5Y4Bj8bf+kmrQOyWtxH8+DR Tmn3UEog4lwfgbKabXXy1u2b6hWRg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrudejgdehvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpeefleehieetteetgfdukeetiefhieetgfdvfefhtddvieefgffgheet feefudeufeenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvd dtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhr ohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2DDAF3280066; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 08:26:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon 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" Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 14:26:15 +0200 Message-ID: <1845327.VSnYL2Xkle@thomas> In-Reply-To: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611548584E5@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <20200612080711.39774-1-junfeng.guo@intel.com> <5246418.gzuaxCN7mb@thomas> <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611548584E5@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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" 08/07/2020 14:05, Zhang, Qi Z: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 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. [...] > > > > > 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 > > > > 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.) > > " > > > > So 40 and 56 are missing. > > Yes, like to add and lets accelerate the progress to abandon the old APIs :) Please could list which part of the existing API you would like to deprecate in future? > > > 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.