Re: [dpdk-dev] filter_ctl PMD API idea

["Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 12:07 AM
> To: Wu, Jingjing
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] filter_ctl PMD API idea
> 
> 2014-09-08 15:06, Wu, Jingjing:
> > Any comments or advises?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Fortville Filter features' development will be started based on this design this week.
> 
> Thanks Jingjing for explaining your plan before working on it.
> There were no comment for 1 month so we'll assume everybody is OK.
> Now your work is done and it's time to integrate it.
> 
It's great, thanks.

> This design is used in many pending patchsets.
> Now I wait for an unique patch out of any patchset in order to do some
> comments about implementation.

OK, an unique patch of this new API definition will be sent soon. And I hope it can be reviewed
With high priority, due to many pending patchsets we need to rework.

> Then it will be applied with i40e filters using this API.
> So we'll have a new API implemented only for i40e.
> But when DPDK 1.8 will be out, I expect to receive patches replacing old API
> with this new one for igb and ixgbe.

Fine, now I am working on integrating ixgbe's flow director to the new APIs.

> Last request, please could you write a brief email summarizing all filters
> of Intel NICs from an user perspective, and which ones are implemented in
> DPDK, with which API?
> 
OK.

> Thanks
> 
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > Hi, all
> > >
> > > When we develop filters feature in i40e driver for Intel® Ethernet Controller XL710/X710
> > > [Fortville] (For both 10G/40G), we found that there are lots of new filters, there are also
> > > some changes on the existing filters, comparing to ixgbe.
> > > If we keep the way to add new ops in rte_eth_dev for each new filter, it can work.
> > > But we suggest to use a more generic API for all filters to avoid a superset dev_ops. It
> needs
> > > to be cleaner and easy-to-use. There is a need for technical discussion.
> > >
> > > Here is the early design idea we are looking for comments.
> > >
> > > 1.   Create two new APIs
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > rte_eth_filter_supported(uint8_t port, uint16_t filter_type);
> > > /* check whether this filter type is supported for the queried port */
> > > rte_eth_filter_ctl(uint8_t port, uint16_t filter_type, uint16_t filter_op, void *arg);
> > > /* configure filters, will call new ops eth_filter_ctl in eth_dev_ops */
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > 2.   Define filter types, operations, and structures in new header file
> > > lib/librte_eth/rte_eth_filter.h.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > #define RTE_ETH_FILTER_RSS		1
> > > #define RTE_ETH_FILTER_SYN	    2
> > > #define RTE_ETH_FILTER_5TUPLE	    3
> > > #define RTE_ETH_FILTER_FDIR		4
> > > .... <all other filter types we support>
> > >
> > > #define RTE_ETH_FILTER_OP_GET      	1
> > > #define RTE_ETH_FILTER_OP_ADD    	2
> > > #define RTE_ETH_FILTER_OP_DELETE		3
> > > #define RTE_ETH_FILTER_OP_SET			4
> > > ....< other operations if want to define>...
> > >
> > > /* structures defined for corresponding filter type and operation */
> > > /* take RTE_ETH_FILTER_FDIR and OP_SET for example*/
> > >
> > > struct rte_eth_filter_fdir_cfg {
> > > #define RTE_ETH_FILTER_FDIR_SET_MASK   0
> > > #define RTE_ETH_FILTER_FDIR_SET_OFFSET  1
> > > …… <other sub operations in this structure>
> > > 	uint16_t cfg_type;
> > > 　　/* sub operation to defined what specific configuration it will take,
> > > 　　　and which following fields are meaningful*/
> > > 　　……
> > > 　　/* fields, can be a union or combine of required specific items*/
> > > 　　……
> > >
> > > };
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > By this way, It is easy to add more filter types or operation in future.
> > > And the difference among the same filter and operation can be distinguish by sub
> command
> > > in defined structure, e.g. ”cfg_type” in above rte_eth_filter_fdir_cfg structure.
> > >
> > > 3.   Define ops in driver (take i40e for example)
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > static struct eth_dev_ops i40e_eth_dev_ops = {
> > >          . filter_ctl = i40e_filter_ctl,
> > > };
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > Then the functions in drivers can be implemented separately.
> > >
> > > 4.   Use case In test-pmd/cmdline.c
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > #include <rte_eth_filter.h>
> > > /* add or change commands e.g. fdir_set (arg1) (arg2) …… */
> > >
> > > static void
> > > cmd_fdir_parsed()
> > > {
> > > 	……
> > > 　　/* take setting fdir mask for example*/
> > > 　　struct rte_eth_filter_fdir_cfg cfg;
> > >
> > > 　　if (rte_eth_filter_supported(port, RTE_ETH_FILTER_FDIR)) {
> > > 　　	cfg.cfg_type = RTE_ETH_FILTER_FDIR_SET_MASK;
> > > 　　	/* fill the corresponding fields in cfg*/
> > > 　　	……
> > > 　　	rte_eth_filter_ctl(port, RTE_ETH_FILTER_FDIR, RTE_ETH_FILTER_OP_SET, &cfg);
> > > 　　}
> > > 	……
> > > }
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > Any comments are welcome!
> > >
> > > At the time being, only Intel PMD is only available on dpdk.org. We are lack of
> understanding
> > > on the other non-Intel PMD, the current design did not take them into account. But we
> are
> > > looking for the inputs from those PMD developers, we strongly look forward to those
> PMD
> > > are released as open source.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Jingjing