From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A16A9C5DF60 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:04:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE7F206BA for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:04:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=monjalon.net header.i=@monjalon.net header.b="mxBE2OrZ"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="iavxdyjF" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3AE7F206BA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=monjalon.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dev-bounces@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD911C0D9; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:04:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595C21C0D3 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:04:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5450667D; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 06:04:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 06:04:00 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=J7Xfcm+AK6f10enq3AE1HCuoHoadaEEWR9Xd4o/+uvU=; b=mxBE2OrZ/XZt exkVFRRHRjUEmD2x2uOT6AYta6rZIRiS2xeOaP7KYcjNZEXHQZNjPQxIAc2a/PCW W0O3a2vXtC28UkkO6P7+zgiyKWo8gBYbzqh876jaMqmXMZN4gJFONchqXYJ3afKi OI4hSUgsHAUfp/sWMBklOv/ZAQlpAhc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=J7Xfcm+AK6f10enq3AE1HCuoHoadaEEWR9Xd4o/+u vU=; b=iavxdyjFLN9sfBdVh68cMnCR0ueVg1kMms+0pqyju0XMA7PniQG0y7atw SsUTErN2L5EFUO90MDsRK7ZiMyM5boUhbef/yi0q4zaRBnkyILQqK3B4wcahLK1f b5xMH0AgKFGLEkWdhlXHhuH1mZrY0x7Jgb4OK0WNI6yb2Z+T0gzgVJSHqG9e5VHQ TvcAhdopQ9sym8DG1Zc0uTV6UQjeA2le5kojlN633XaDiah5ygaciKm5MNjLONIy XKDLV5RgWx9CVJ8PJpj5ithHsVghZtPOjoysbkprrbg5OjiT07oThCxN6wTcq2cs 6lRtetcG8NxG2uj2hYGgo8KrkcdTg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddvuddgvdegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeelfedrvdefrdduleekrdduvdegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (124.198.23.93.rev.sfr.net [93.23.198.124]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DB964306005E; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 06:03:56 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Andrew Rybchenko Cc: Ori Kam , "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" , Olivier Matz Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 12:03:53 +0100 Message-ID: <1784584.NQqjHnNvIa@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20191025152142.12887-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com> <1594828.JO7TyvRWtP@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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" 08/11/2019 11:42, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 11/8/19 1:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 08/11/2019 09:35, Andrew Rybchenko: > >> The problem: > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> PMD wants to know before port start if application wants to > >> to use flow MARK/FLAG in the future. It is required because: > >> > >> 1. HW may be configured in a different way to reserve resources > >> for MARK/FLAG delivery > >> > >> 2. Datapath implementation choice may depend on it (e.g. vPMD > >> is faster, but does not support MARK) > > > > Thank you for the clear problem statement. > > I agree with it. This is a real design issue. > > > > > >> Discussed solutions: > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > May be it is not 100% clear since below are alternatives. > > >> A. Explicit Rx offload suggested by the patch. > >> > >> B. Implicit by validation of a flow rule with MARK/FLAG actions used. > >> > >> C. Use dynamic field/flag (i.e. application registers dynamic field > >> and/or flag and PMD uses lookup to solve the problem) plus part > >> of (B) to discover if a feature is supported. > > > > The dynamic field should be registered via a new API function > > named '_init'. > > It means the application must explicit request the feature. > > I agree this is the way to go. > > If I understand your statement correctly, but (C) is not ideal since it > looks global. If registered dynamic field of mbuf and is flag that > the feature should be enabled, it is a flag to all ports/devices. > > >> All solutions require changes in applications which use these > >> features. There is a deprecation notice in place which advertises > >> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_FLOW_MARK addition, but may be it is OK to substitute > >> it with solution (B) or (C). Solution (C) requires changes since > >> it should be combined with (B) in order to understand if > >> the feature is supported. > > > > I don't understand. > > Application request and PMD support are two different things. > > PMD support must be via rte_flow validation on a case by case anyway. > > I mean that application wants to understand if the feature is > supported. Then, it wants to enable it. In the case of (B), > if I understand the solution correctly, there is no explicit > way to enable, PMD just detects it because of discovery is done > (that's what I mean by "implicit" and it is a drawback from my > point of view, but still could be considered). (C) solves the > problem of (B). > > >> Advantages and drawbacks of solutions: > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> 1. The main drawback of (A) is a "duplication" since we already > >> have a way to request flow MARK using rte_flow API. > >> I don't fully agree that it is a duplication, but I agree > >> that it sounds like duplication and complicates a bit flow > >> MARK usage by applications. (B) complicates it as well. > >> > >> 2. One more drawback of the solution (A) is the necessity of > >> similar solution for META and it eats one more offload bit. > >> Yes, that's true and I think it is not a problem. > >> It would make it easier for applications to find out if > >> either MARK or META is supported. > >> > >> 3. The main advantage of the solution (A) is simplicity. > >> It is simple for application to understand if it supported. > >> It is simple in PMD to understand that it is required. > >> It is simple to disable it - just reconfigure. > >> Also it is easier to document it - just mention that > >> the offload should be supported and enabled. > >> > >> 4. The main advantage of the solution (B) is no "duplication". > >> I agree that it is valid argument. Solving the problem > >> without extra entities is always nice, but unfortunately > >> it is too complex in this case. > >> > >> 5. The main drawback of the solution (B) is the complexity. > >> It is necessary to choose a flow rule which should be used > >> as a criteria. It could be hardware dependent. > >> Complex logic is require in PMD if it wants to address the > >> problem and control MARK delivery based on validated flow > >> rules. It adds dependency between start/stop processing and > >> flow rules validation code. > >> It is pretty complicated to document it. > >> > >> 6. Useless enabling of the offload in the case of solution (A) > >> if really used flow rules do not support MARK looks like > >> drawback as well, but easily mitigated by a combination > >> with solution (B) and only required if the application wants > >> to dive in the level of optimization and complexity and > >> makes sense if application knows required flow rules in > >> advance. So, it is not a problem in this case. > >> > >> 7. Solution (C) has drawbacks of the solution (B) for > >> applications to understand if these features are supported, > >> but no drawbacks in PMD, since explicit criteria is used to > >> enable/disable (dynamic field/flag lookup). > >> > >> 8. Solution (C) is nice since it avoids "duplication". > >> > >> 9. The main drawback of the solution (C) is asymmetry. > >> As it was discussed in the case of RX_TIMESTAMP > >> (if I remember it correctly): > >> - PMD advertises RX_TIMESTAMP offload capability > >> - application enables the offload > >> - PMD registers dynamic field for timestamp > >> Solution (C): > >> - PMD advertises nothing > >> - application uses solution (B) to understand if > >> these features are supported > >> - application registers dynamic field/flag > >> - PMD does lookup and solve the problem > >> The asymmetry could be partially mitigated if RX_TIMESTAMP > >> solution is changed to require an application to register > >> dynamic fields and PMD to do lookup if the offload is > >> enabled. So, the only difference will be in no offload > >> in the case of flow MARK/FLAG and usage of complex logic > >> to understand if it is supported or no. > >> May be it would be really good since it will allow to > >> have dynamic fields registered before mempool population. > >> > >> 10. Common drawback of solutions (B) and (C) is no granularity. > >> Solution (A) may be per queue while (B) and (C) cannot be > >> per queue. Moreover (C) looks global - for all devices. > >> It could be really painful. > >> > >> (C) is nice, but I still vote for simplicity and > >> granularity of (A). > > > > I vote for clear separation of application needs and PMD support, > > by using the method C (dynamic fields). > > I agree timestamp must use the same path. > > I agree it's complicate because we don't know in advance whether > > a flow rule will be accepted, but that's the reality, config is complex. > > Do you think that global nature of the (C) is acceptable? That's a good question. Maybe the feature request should be per port. In this case, we are back to solution A with a flag per port? Note that A and C will not guarantee that the offload will be possible. We need B (flow rule validation) anyway. It seems A, B, C are not alternatives but all required as pieces of a puzzle...