From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB0043CF8; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:31:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A53340298; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:31:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658DC40289 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:31:04 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1710837063; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EKD+a+aks7qFTFpRDKpJP2cyMQW4IyEN0l6KLYXXbuQ=; b=N8gkBzO65kFRXUgjgVqSgirFbEYAeT4DgRgWe7SZJHbpuGiEjG1NuAp8LSaIwfvqOU1X4W dgsYjDsIsn/G7ZvbITxTSNyTqd/sXqJVGZb3vuzaMVlbY3IWTIWaFroIhePtLcS+8U9yti wRSdCUN7S8OTVz3UXOK/N2hK/eBd3Wk= Received: from mail-wr1-f69.google.com (mail-wr1-f69.google.com [209.85.221.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-18-5wUmp_aMNLW-zB-TBMqBmg-1; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 04:31:02 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 5wUmp_aMNLW-zB-TBMqBmg-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f69.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-33eca6f6e4bso2773640f8f.0 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 01:31:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710837061; x=1711441861; h=user-agent:subject:to:from:cc:message-id:date :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EKD+a+aks7qFTFpRDKpJP2cyMQW4IyEN0l6KLYXXbuQ=; b=lrrfSxtY9ndX+Cps/C1s7zdqg7iDsUyJJ7bPje57ZRunEOb96SWFiFQNbbGuZMlarB d2hkcM4QdnPE1/0qiw4JliVF5vGzqJ81dqvte6N7UGxrrdSz67gShIVIhCPkgEp4Z2qR Cl9bs8Z3KcUf7ZXLjAEAg4/FMi3yy3Wh00GO/He2fnMCHZ0y9/4EXB98+1EJ2KylHFML 9u9V7XRBV8eWIMtNgO4dBNzbuzDH6JKOZFBvNCbpk3PCEqkqH++KVlHAk2JC+2rO159L t+/vOtF9DkD18BUMC+g8SfU7uXq2T267dNnIhq0Mi4pxUI+0rpnWrEGjCE7i04AB/0Oh 3kZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw3nnI2viRUhP4rhC0FSYsYYrsCDcKErY1uClSs0cHGuupI59WU 4UZEegFN38/JhnMXzswHinK+3Vim8rsExWATT6hupSPxz6cpp7tkdLiw8VRn6v9SZZ8TuMceSdb d3zll+HvUovqK/mQ9Gqx/v2EaPtP0a671zxGBFEoD X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4f92:b0:414:101a:fa67 with SMTP id n18-20020a05600c4f9200b00414101afa67mr1385902wmq.18.1710837061038; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 01:31:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGoDqNRUkJv6Z20lKJfZcQ0CEn9D0EPXGrNyO5bBKUV6p+4EY91TrFCpNrZrbJYG/gNys2qXg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4f92:b0:414:101a:fa67 with SMTP id n18-20020a05600c4f9200b00414101afa67mr1385889wmq.18.1710837060702; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 01:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (2a01cb000f8b9700598da2e1679e8383.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb00:f8b:9700:598d:a2e1:679e:8383]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t14-20020a05600c450e00b0041409db0349sm9231029wmo.48.2024.03.19.01.31.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Mar 2024 01:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:30:59 +0100 Message-Id: Cc: , "Bruce Richardson" From: "Robin Jarry" To: "Vladimir Medvedkin" Subject: fib{,6}: questions and proposals User-Agent: aerc/0.17.0-81-gd2764918eb55 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=Flowed X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Hi Vladimir, I have been using rte_fib for a while and stumbled upon a few quirks.=20 I was wondering if you would answer some questions: 1) Is it OK/safe to share the same fib to perform route lookups from=20 multiple lcores in parallel? So far my observations seem to validate=20 that assumption but I would like your opinion :) 2) Is it OK/safe to modify a fib from a control thread (read/write)=20 while it is used by data path threads (read only)? 3) There is no public API to list/walk all configured routes in a fib.=20 Would that be possible/easy to implement? 4) In rte_fib, every IPv4 address (route *and* next hop) needs to be in=20 host order. This is not consistent with fib6 where addresses are=20 stored in network order. It took me quite a while to figure out what=20 was wrong with my code. I assume this is because DIR24 needs host order integers and not=20 TRIE. Why was this not hidden in the API? Could we add a flag to rte_fib_conf to change the behaviour? This=20 would avoid error prone ntohl/htonl juggling. Thanks in advance for your replies :) --=20 Robin