From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
To: Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@corigine.com>,
Roi Dayan <roid@nvidia.com>,
Victor Nogueira <victor@mojatatu.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
oss-drivers <oss-drivers@corigine.com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v2] tc: add skip_hw and skip_sw to control action offload
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 07:51:04 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <280e716c-a588-5c7b-d77e-d5d09bb0148b@mojatatu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR1301MB21722969131F70DD7FA350EFE7309@DM5PR1301MB2172.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
On 2022-02-11 05:01, Baowen Zheng wrote:
> Hi Jamal:
> Sorry for the delay of the reply.
>
I guess it is my turn to say sorry for the latency ;->
> On February 2, 2022 7:47 PM, Jamal wrote:
>> On 2022-02-02 04:37, Baowen Zheng wrote:
>>> Hi Roi:
>>> Thanks for bring this to us, please see the inline comments.
>>>
[..]
>>
>> Probably the language usage is causing the confusion and I missed this detail
>> in the output as well. Let me see if i can break this down.
>>
>> Either both action and filter are in h/w or they are not. i.e
>>
>> action in h/w + filter in h/w == GOOD
>> action in h/w + filter in s/w == BAD
>> action in s/w + filter in h/w == BAD
>> action in s/w + filter in s/w == GOOD
>>
>> The kernel patches did have those rules in place - and Baowen added tdc tests
>> to check for this.
>>
>> Now on the workflow:
>> 1) If you add an action independently to offload before you add a filter when
>> you dump actions it should say "skip_sw, ref 1 bind 0"
>> i.e information is sufficient here to know that the action is offloaded but there
>> is no filter attached.
>>
>> 2) If you bind this action after to a filter which _has to be offloaded_
>> (otherwise the filter will be rejected) then when you dump the actions you
>> should see "skip_sw ref 2 bind 1"; when you dump the filter you should see
>> the same on the filter.
>>
>> 3) If you create a skip_sw filter without step #1 then when you dump you
>> should see "skip_sw ref 1 bind 1" both when dumping in IOW, the not_in_hw
>> is really unnecessary.
>>
>> So why not just stick with skip_sw and not add some new language?
>>
> If I do not misunderstand, you mean we just show the skip_sw flag and do not show other information(in_hw, not_in_hw and in_hw_count), I think it is reasonable to show the action information as your suggestion if the action is dumped along with the filters.
>
Yes, thats what i am saying - it maintains the existing semantics people
are aware of for usability.
> But as we discussed previously, we added the flags of skip_hw, skip_sw, in_hw_count mainly for the action dump command(tc -s -d actions list action xxx).
> We know that the action can be created with three flags case: skip_sw, skip_hw and no flag.
> Then when the actions are dumped independently, the information of skip_hw, skip_sw, in_hw_count will become important for the user to distinguish if the action is offloaded or not.
>
> So does that mean we need to show different item when the action is dumped independent or along with the filter?
>
I see your point. I am trying to visualize how we deal with the
tri-state in filters and we never considered what you are suggesting.
Most people either skip_sw or skip_hw in presence of offloadable hw.
In absence of hardware nobody specifies a flag, so nothing is displayed.
My eyes are used to how filters look like. Not sure anymore tbh. Roi?
cheers,
jamal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-16 12:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-26 6:54 [PATCH iproute2-next v2] tc: add skip_hw and skip_sw to control action offload Baowen Zheng
2022-01-26 13:41 ` Victor Nogueira
2022-01-31 19:40 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2022-02-02 8:39 ` Roi Dayan
2022-02-02 8:46 ` Roi Dayan
2022-02-02 9:37 ` Baowen Zheng
2022-02-02 11:15 ` Roi Dayan
2022-02-02 11:47 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2022-02-11 10:01 ` Baowen Zheng
2022-02-16 12:51 ` Jamal Hadi Salim [this message]
2022-02-16 14:18 ` Roi Dayan
2022-02-17 1:51 ` Baowen Zheng
2022-02-01 3:50 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=280e716c-a588-5c7b-d77e-d5d09bb0148b@mojatatu.com \
--to=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=baowen.zheng@corigine.com \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oss-drivers@corigine.com \
--cc=roid@nvidia.com \
--cc=simon.horman@corigine.com \
--cc=victor@mojatatu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).