On 6/2/22 02:20, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> Summary must not be a statement. May be:
> ethdev: add strict queue to pre-configuration flow hints
Ok, I'll change to this.
>
> On 6/1/22 10:39, Xiaoyu Min wrote:
>> The data-path focused flow rule management can manage flow rules in more
>> optimized way than traditional one by using hints provided by
>> application in initialization phase.
>>
>> In addition to the current hints we have in port attr, more hints could
>> be provided by application about its behaviour.
>>
>> One example is how the application do with the same flow rule ?
>> A. create/destroy flow on same queue but query flow on different queue
>>     or queue-less way (i.e, counter query)
>> B. All flow operations will be exactly on the same queue, by which PMD
>>     could be in more optimized way then A because resource could be
>>     isolated and access based on queue, without lock, for example.
>>
>> This patch add flag about above situation and could be extended to cover
>> more situations.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiaoyu Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h | 11 +++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
>> index d8827dd184..38439fcd1d 100644
>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
>> @@ -4948,6 +4948,12 @@ rte_flow_info_get(uint16_t port_id,
>>             struct rte_flow_queue_info *queue_info,
>>             struct rte_flow_error *error);
>>   +/**
>> + * Indicate all operations for a given flow rule will _strictly_ happen
>> + * on the same queue (create/destroy/query/update).
>> + */
>> +#define RTE_FLOW_PORT_FLAG_STRICT_QUEUE RTE_BIT32(0)
>> +
>>   /**
>>    * @warning
>>    * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this API may change without prior notice.
>> @@ -4972,6 +4978,11 @@ struct rte_flow_port_attr {
>>        * @see RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_METER
>>        */
>>       uint32_t nb_meters;
>> +    /**
>> +     * Port flags.
>> +     * @see RTE_FLOW_PORT_FLAG_STRICT_QUEUE
>
> I'm not sure that it is a good idea to list flags here.
> If so, it will be required to add all future flags here.
Yes, it will become a lot later on.
> So, may be just "Port flags (RTE_FLOW_PORT_FLAG_*)"
Sure.
>
>> +     */
>> +    uint32_t flags;
>>   };
>>     /**
>