From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua1-f48.google.com (mail-ua1-f48.google.com [209.85.222.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B295F29 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 07:38:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ua1-f48.google.com with SMTP id d2so1060305ual.2 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 22:38:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xbEd6O82ZkMMNIZ2Ll31yZB/Bc90j3BPXSg3SDTa+W0=; b=uMj38xvskjqpYiGMKwhP6DmxUrpX5V0B/djWHDli2r572DeHzeCmlRepJ+73lPyZZD 1QDfi7ilxRI3cD6mDkGVV8qZgay7RE67Qwv+5IHayHJ4h5q5KkTA/2sg1LfBJ7cd0Ubu 1pp8vPG8v6jEuff/yqKN2Rg08vsbPoEjMRMrbT+rSla1DO5ml1PjuCuLNWcYz5AQZhV2 70iHL/NNi4V4foce9to6pNkReuHgah2CpO0ACCD9uCpqBsZkvEQxptKTdxgv4Bac64sK sVX7+CDsL3vpCDwSh1/sAiSUBoGPsWvS7RX6rHcFp9mp24o9Sz0GUn6rQm/ODhhQbwDP +H7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=xbEd6O82ZkMMNIZ2Ll31yZB/Bc90j3BPXSg3SDTa+W0=; b=pPEjCJDJWaZ6dV4xrmVGv81p4cq2M+lUKy/oBxPPTt6C7ADI512Dy0N/hgIgyIf27m yVSB5lvrW84mWxLwt+DCcPrmgEreKb8xmq/MlhfA+OIr+6BYhXcm6czwJL69Fv/2rJSw VOPV0mJNOGxCLdFQw22xHnwZ7TevExC2QuYxo3vgk8dKt7jwbDM34cR4p6LAAU5TD/aw Nnt4uuace8ykUpmmo6gAyhad0gTjiy6fYtC/Qz3rYIZ0G1GfSo41fP955jnZEh40xSkn ZQlpv+k07c5VBeJDtwzuMe34iN8ohpvO1SE4zIQUZmrg/GX4tgyewa2CNrxdbBld3ZWF tnwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaefsC+grNd/apWp58ayOACNHH2MAB+4TzRbklyjcyRHtUqkXf8 pzwuZmcbRlMR+KB5mbvUUGLR9j1RYBJcnad5EKRiug== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/X8qty/xSHf6vexdgrghw4WHU8xtybhEZz1zkP/xsrgP9hQgnl9HfZUZF012gg7Q8aEJoyqe8xq6bOfXDRBSmg= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:7488:: with SMTP id n8mr419642uap.115.1544164733864; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 22:38:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Georgios Katsikas Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:38:41 +0200 Message-ID: To: dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Flow Director vs. 5-tuple filters on a 10GbE Intel 82599 ES NIC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 06:38:55 -0000 This is a kind reminder for my question above. Best regards, Georgios On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:41 PM Georgios Katsikas wrote: > Dear all, > > I am performing rule installation/deletion benchmarks on a dual port 10 > GbE Intel 82599 ES NIC using DPDK 18.11. > The benchmark installs increasing number of rules (5 to 8000), measures > the rule installation rate and latency and then deletes the rules > (measuring again the rule deletion rate/latency). > The rule sets comprise of rules with exact matches (no masks involved) as > follows: > > *Simple rule* > flow create 0 ingress pattern eth / ipv4 dst is 129.72.224.94 / end > actions queue index 0 / end > > *More complicated rule* > flow create 0 ingress pattern eth / ipv4 dst is 46.54.254.68 src is > 49.75.141.195 proto is 17 / udp dst is 26561 src is 7242 / end actions > queue index 0 / end > > No matter how simple or complicated the rules are, I am not able to > install more than 128 rules on this NIC. > > *Here comes my question* > > According to the specification > , > this NIC can accommodate up to 128 5-tuple filters, which very well agrees > with my observation above. > However, the same document states that this NIC can also accommodate up to > 8000 Flow Director filters. > What is the practical difference between a 5-tuple and a Flow Director > rule in this case? How can I exploit these 8k filters using DPDK 18.11? > > Thanks in advance, > Georgios > > > >