From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 0/5] net_sched: Add support for IFE action Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:09:14 -0500 Message-ID: <56CC4BEA.70108@mojatatu.com> References: <1456147304-13355-1-git-send-email-jhs@emojatatu.com> <56CB3B90.8030206@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com To: Daniel Borkmann , davem@davemloft.net Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]:38702 "EHLO mail-ig0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750740AbcBWMJX (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:09:23 -0500 Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y8so101920191igp.1 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:09:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56CB3B90.8030206@iogearbox.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Daniel, On 16-02-22 11:47 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > Hi Jamal, > > On 02/22/2016 02:21 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: >> From: Jamal Hadi Salim >> >> >> As agreed at netconf in Seville, here's the patch finally (1 year >> was just too long to wait). >> Described in netdev01 paper: >> "Distributing Linux Traffic Control Classifier-Action >> Subsystem" >> Authors: Jamal Hadi Salim and Damascene M. Joachimpillai >> >> Allows for incremental updates for new metadatum support. >> This patch set includes support for basic skb metadatum >> Followup patches will have more examples of metadata > > So, basically this is a L2 encap with TLVs, right? > > And as TLVs you have skb->mark, skb->priority, skb->hash, > skb->queue_mapping > that you transfer from one machine to another, where on the destination, > you > are applying the above meta data to the skb itself. And, configuration > is via > tc. > > I couldn't parse from the commit log what the real world use case is, resp. > who is going to use this infrastructure? > > Do you have some typical setup, where the above needs to be transferred > in the > encap and restored? > I am assuming you are asking this for the sake of people who dont have context (and not for yourself)? I added a pointer to the paper. It is 6 pages and simple to read. Isnt that sufficient? I dont want to write a novel here. Some could argue that in fact i am already writing a novel in commit 1/5. >> Jamal Hadi Salim (5): >> introduce IFE action >> Support to encoding decoding skb mark on IFE action >> Support to encoding decoding skb prio on IFE action >> Support to encoding decoding skb hashid on IFE action >> Support to encoding decoding skb queue map on IFE action >> >> include/net/tc_act/tc_ife.h | 60 +++ >> include/uapi/linux/tc_act/tc_ife.h | 38 ++ >> net/sched/Kconfig | 32 ++ >> net/sched/Makefile | 5 + >> net/sched/act_ife.c | 865 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> net/sched/act_meta_mark.c | 81 ++++ >> net/sched/act_meta_qmap.c | 100 +++++ >> net/sched/act_meta_skbhash.c | 87 ++++ >> net/sched/act_meta_skbprio.c | 80 ++++ > > Splitting these set/get functions into individual modules where you only > set/get a single skb member seems overkill to me. Could be done with a > simple switch statement inside ife? > They need to be separated to make them unique. These are basic metadatum; I have a few others lined up - but i just wanted to start with these because they are obvious to see. What i mulled over is to send one big patch or several. In the end it seemed cleaner to send separate patches. Thanks for your other input - I will redo, test and submit v2. cheers, jamal