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 EF7B9A0352; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 12:41:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DCF2BE9; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 12:41:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [67.231.154.164]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6D52BC8 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 12:41:44 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from webmail.solarflare.com (uk.solarflare.com [193.34.186.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1-us5.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 5475958006B; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 11:41:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.192] (188.242.181.57) by ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 11:41:32 +0000 To: Ori Kam , Thomas Monjalon CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "pbhagavatula@marvell.com" , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , "John McNamara" , Marko Kovacevic , Adrien Mazarguil , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "ktraynor@redhat.com" References: <20191025152142.12887-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com> <3078181.9TjvbByyqQ@xps> From: Andrew Rybchenko Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:41:14 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [188.242.181.57] X-ClientProxiedBy: ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) To ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.5.1010-25018.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No-22.684000-8.000000-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: jFqw+1pFnMweimh1YYHcKPZvT2zYoYOwt3aeg7g/usAutoY2UtFqGFV6 aspoCMU5+ToHPqLrAijYVN9VJmcBIBJo+whl1FUuHmtCXih7f9OuQaF33T8MPkJH5TmQ0oLqKSL 7phzxTrY8alXwOGWWmK/PondMQ6+R3CsWrpIbV2zMbQu1fPiCD+cSX9hAHGJw33Nl3elSfspIeB RUygi/YWKmpRZOtx8U3gxxdmeJ36ydnO9WT4MKG51U1lojafr/5GzAEk8IK4j7+53TnNrjJAoKk oCEm/GhJicU14mk9hOaC5zkVq7L7kABfZHqYIeMpL2kLXgwLcKhQhstwJ9G4LEe96bzLpOvqCg7 KdzkT54SZmqWTdxLdTBvQG4mYb8s0Gz/Cfu4aZKW0Geml8+Yuo+cLKu3l4On0SxMhOhuA0ShzZX VBAvTVI4GPKxYWKFqpX+4y4yQ7FGly3dXM0lKBwX114DiZrDpUk7yUtNRk6evIaW/gtYq3w13bv /YY/bO4VtVHUob0XhkDgD9MSPAkf+t69FNoOHH9FQh3flUIh67xmCZDXrutUFungmhsSsC9WXm+ yhJKyjCyfYnAuBEjkE6T6UFioKMPHy3FcXMUgjbDD1in4vngBQEj9RZgbsWgDMpBAejORJ9dXTk s39q/vKkPBtuAVD8+gKXsB0USXBA0oZ5IJOwimY+xOrx57jWvvkzqYJBDFa9riHHO5UXuOHwoKI jQi1uwfRTv4WR32fgT8I1IuUKn4tJ/C2icLh29TCJfXmXS28IpCgB9cUv3kAcWyhSI7Yf8G/sG7 +c6DJF71CJTns84IWzbuOtvEAmgiTuMngLPCKeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqC1B0Hk1Q1KyJHtBsf5 /UXJSmydcQXaFcX3QfwsVk0Ubs+0LwoCEp+IX7cGd19dSFd X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-TMASE-Result: 10--22.684000-8.000000 X-TMASE-Version: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.5.1010-25018.003 X-MDID: 1572781304-pWk8rysXu06H Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: add flow action type update as an offload 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" On 11/3/19 1:22 PM, Ori Kam wrote: > Hi, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dev On Behalf Of Andrew Rybchenko >> Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 1:35 PM >> To: Thomas Monjalon >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam ; >> pbhagavatula@marvell.com; ferruh.yigit@intel.com; jerinj@marvell.com; John >> McNamara ; Marko Kovacevic >> ; Adrien Mazarguil >> ; david.marchand@redhat.com; >> ktraynor@redhat.com >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: add flow action type update as an >> offload >> >> On 10/31/19 5:49 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 31/10/2019 10:49, Andrew Rybchenko: >>>> On 10/28/19 5:00 PM, Ori Kam wrote: >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko >>>>>> On 10/28/19 1:50 PM, Ori Kam wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Pavan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry for jumping in late. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't understand why we need this feature. If the user didn't set any >> flow >>>>>> with MARK >>>>>>> then the user doesn't need to check it. >>>>>> There is pretty long discussion on the topic already, please, read [1]. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> >> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Finbox.dpdk >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Ori >>>>>> .org%2Fdev%2F3251fc00-7598-1c4f-fc2a- >>>>>> >> 380065f0a435%40solarflare.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Corika%40mellan >> ox.com%7Ce3f779d4b7c44b682d6508d75b9d8688%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4 >> d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C637078604439019114&sdata=sYooc%2FQ3C >>>>>> kUZG3gRFPlZrm8xMfMB9gOWWex5YIkWhMc%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the link, it was an interesting reading. >>>>> >>>>>>> Also it breaks compatibility. >>>>>> Yes, there is a deprecation notice for it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If my understanding is correct the MARK field is going to be moved to >>>>>> dynamic field, and this >>>>>>> will be way to control the use of MARK. >>>>>> Yes and I think the offload should used to request dynamic >>>>>> field register. Similar to timestamp in dynamic mbuf examples. >>>>>> Application requests Rx timestamp offload, PMD registers dynamic >>>>>> filed. >>>>>> >>>>> In general it was decided that there will be no capability for rte_flow API, >> due to the fact that >>>>> it is impossible to support all possible combinations. For example a PMD >> can allow mark on Rx >>>>> while not supporting it on e-switch (transfer) or on Tx. >>>>> The only way to validate it is validating a flow. If the flow is validated then >> the action is supported. >>>>> This is the exact approach we are implementing with the Meta feature. >>>>> So as I see it, the logic should be something like this: >>>>> 1. run devconfigure. >>>>> 2. allocate mempool >>>>> 3. setup queues. >>>>> 4. run rte_flow_validate with mark action. >>>>> If flow validated register mark in mbuf else don't register. >>>>> If the PMD needs some special setting for mark he can update the queue >> when he gets the flow to validate. >>>>> At this stage the device is not started so any change is allowed. >>>> I understand why there is capability reporting in rte_flow API when >>>> it is about rte_flow API itself. The problem appears when rte_flow >>>> API starts to interact with other functionality. >>>> Which pattern/actions should application try in order to decide >>>> if MARK is supported or not. >>> Why application should decide whether MARK is supported or not? >>> In my understanding it can be enabled dynamically per flow. >> Yes, it is per flow right now, but it is resource consuming to >> make a flow rule just to discard it and work without offload. >> The application already suffers and attempt to use hardware >> offload makes it suffer even more. Of course, hardware offload >> in application may be simply globall disabled, but presence of >> MARK offload allows to do it dynamically based on offload >> reported by PMD. >> >> Also I think that Qi has a good example for vPMD why >> MARK offload would be useful. >> > I don't think that creating a simple flow during startup is resource consuming. It is not about startup. It is for every rule which will be rejected since MARK is not supported. > I think as we move more and more to rte_flow we can't continue using offloads. > The fact that one PMD doesn't support mark first should be listed in a release notes, Release notes are nice, but it is nothing for automated processing. > In Qi example the application can start with it's preferred PMD and test if its support the mark action, > if not try other PMD or use some fallback. Pretty often there is no direct control over PMD to use. It is either vendor specific or no control at all. PMD choice is the result of requested offloads. > Think about it like this, assume that one PMD support some other > rte_flow while the second PMD doesn't support it. so the application should decide which is more important > to it and enable the best PMD. Again, it is not about filtering only. It is delivery of the extra information which requires extra processing and extra resources. >>>> The right answer is a pattern/action >>>> which will be really used, but what to do if there are many >>>> combinations or if these combinations are not know in advance. >>>> Minimal? But I easily imagine cases when minimal is not supported, >>>> but more complex real life patterns are supported. >>>> >>>> The main idea behind the offload is as much as you know in advance >>>> as much you can optimize without overcomplicating drivers and HW. >>>> >>>> In the case of OVS, absence MARK offload would mean that OVS >>>> should not even try to use partial offload even if it is enabled. >>>> So, no efforts are required to try to convert flow into pattern and >>>> validate the flow rule. >>> That's an interesting feedback. >>> I would like to understand why OVS cannot adapt its datapath on demand >>> per port, per queue and per flow? >> I guess there is a misunderstanding here. What I'm trying to say >> is that introduction of MARK offload would make code a bit more >> simple and efficient. Basically it would be possible to enable >> so-called hardware offload in OVS by default, but finally make >> a decision per port based on MARK offload availability >> (should it try to make rte_flow rule by flow and insert it?) > Like I said the PMD can check if it mark is avail in the buff. So he can selected the > best function. Which buff?