Hi Dekel,
Could you please show with an example i.e how the corresponding
'flow create' cmd will look like in testpmd?
Also I'm guessing you would need to change the cmdline_parser logic in
testpmd application as well to recognize this new rte_flow_item?
Thanks
Som
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yongseok Koh
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:44 PM
> > To: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>
> > Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam
> > <or...@mellanox.com>; Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>;
> > Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > <tho...@monjalon.net>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Adrien Mazarguil
> > <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>; Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>;
> > Alex Rosenbaum <al...@mellanox.com>
> > Subject: Re: [RFC v2] ethdev: support metadata as flow rule criteria
> >
> > > On Aug 26, 2018, at 7:09 AM, Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Current implementation of rte_flow allows match pattern of flow rule,
> > > based on packet data or header fields.
> > > This limits the application use of match patterns.
> > >
> > > For example, consider a vswitch application which controls a set of
> > > VMs, connected with virtio, in a fabric with overlay of VXLAN.
> > > Several VMs can have the same inner tuple, while the outer tuple is
> > > different and controlled by the vswitch (encap action).
> > > For the vswtich to be able to offload the rule to the NIC, it must use
> > > a unique match criteria, independent from the inner tuple, to perform
> > > the encap action.
> > >
> > > This RFC adds support for additional metadata to use as match pattern.
> > > The metadata is an opaque item, fully controlled by the application.
> > >
> > > The use of metadata is relevant for egress rules only.
> > > It can be set in the flow rule using the RTE_FLOW_ITEM_META.
> > >
> > > In order to avoid change in mbuf API, exisitng field mbuf.hash.fdir.hi
> > > will be used to carry the metadata item. This field is used only in
> > > ingress packets, so using it for egress metadata will not cause
> conflicts.
> > >
> > > Application should set the packet metdata in the mbuf dedicated field,
> > > and set the PKT_TX_METADATA flag in the mbuf->ol_flags.
> > > The NIC will use the packet metadata as match criteria for relevant
> > > flow rules.
> > >
> > > For example, to do an encap action depending on the VM id, the
> > > application needs to configure 'match on metadata' rte_flow rule with
> > > VM id as metadata, along with desired encap action.
> > > When preparing an egress data packet, application will set VM id data
> > > in mbuf dedicated field, and set PKT_TX_METADATA flag.
> > >
> > > PMD will send data packets to NIC, with VM id as metadata.
> > > Egress flow on NIC will match metadata as done with other criteria.
> > > Upon match on metadata (VM id) the appropriate encap action will be
> > > performed.
> > >
> > > This RFC introduces metadata item type for rte_flow
> > > RTE_FLOW_ITEM_META, along with corresponding struct
> > rte_flow_item_meta
> > > and ol_flag PKT_TX_METADATA.
> > >
> > > Comments are welcome.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>
> > > ---
> > > v2: Use existing field in mbuf for metadata item, as suggested, instead
> > > of adding a new field.
> > > Metadata item size adjusted to 32 bits.
> > > ---
> > > doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c | 1 +
> > > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> > > 4 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > > b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > > index b305a72..560e45a 100644
> > > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > > @@ -1191,6 +1191,27 @@ Normally preceded by any of:
> > > - `Item: ICMP6_ND_NS`_
> > > - `Item: ICMP6_ND_OPT`_
> > >
> > > +Item: ``META``
> > > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > +
> > > +Matches an application specific 32 bit metadata item.
> > > +
> > > +- Default ``mask`` matches any 32 bit value.
> > > +
> > > +.. _table_rte_flow_item_meta:
> > > +
> > > +.. table:: META
> > > +
> > > + +----------+----------+---------------------------+
> > > + | Field | Subfield | Value |
> > > + +==========+==========+===========================+
> > > + | ``spec`` | ``data`` | 32 bit metadata value |
> > > + +----------+--------------------------------------+
> > > + | ``last`` | ``data`` | upper range value |
> > > + +----------+----------+---------------------------+
> > > + | ``mask`` | ``data`` | zeroed to match any value |
> > > + +----------+----------+---------------------------+
> > > +
> > > Actions
> > > ~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c
> > > b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c index cff4b52..54e5ef8 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c
> > > @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ struct rte_flow_desc_data {
> > > sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_icmp6_nd_opt_sla_eth)),
> > > MK_FLOW_ITEM(ICMP6_ND_OPT_TLA_ETH,
> > > sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_icmp6_nd_opt_tla_eth)),
> > > + MK_FLOW_ITEM(META, sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_meta)),
> > > };
> > >
> > > /** Generate flow_action[] entry. */
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h index f8ba71c..eba3cc4 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > @@ -413,6 +413,15 @@ enum rte_flow_item_type {
> > > * See struct rte_flow_item_mark.
> > > */
> > > RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_MARK,
> > > +
> > > + /**
> > > + * [META]
> > > + *
> > > + * Matches a metadata value specified in mbuf metadata field.
> > > + *
> > > + * See struct rte_flow_item_meta.
> > > + */
> > > + RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META,
> > > };
> > >
> > > /**
> > > @@ -849,6 +858,22 @@ struct rte_flow_item_gre { #endif
> > >
> > > /**
> > > + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META.
> > > + *
> > > + * Matches a specified metadata value.
> > > + */
> > > +struct rte_flow_item_meta {
> > > + uint32_t data;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +/** Default mask for RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META. */ #ifndef
> > __cplusplus
> > > +static const struct rte_flow_item_meta rte_flow_item_meta_mask = {
> > > + .data = RTE_BE32(UINT32_MAX),
> > > +};
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_FUZZY
> > > *
> > > * Fuzzy pattern match, expect faster than default.
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > index 9ce5d76..77c1552 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > @@ -182,6 +182,11 @@
> > > /* add new TX flags here */
> > >
> > > /**
> > > + * This flag indicates that the metadata field in the mbuf is in use.
> > > + */
> > > +#define PKT_TX_METADATA (1ULL << 41)
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > * UDP Fragmentation Offload flag. This flag is used for enabling UDP
> > > * fragmentation in SW or in HW. When use UFO, mbuf->tso_segsz is used
> > > * to store the MSS of UDP fragments.
> > > @@ -526,6 +531,14 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
> > > uint32_t hi;
> > > /**< First 4 flexible bytes or FD ID, dependent on
> > > PKT_RX_FDIR_* flag in ol_flags. */
> > > +
> > > + /**
> > > + * Above item has optional use on egress:
> > > + * Application specific metadata value
> > > + * for flow rule match.
> > > + * Valid if PKT_TX_METADATA is set.
> > > + */
> > > +
> >
> > Hi Dekel,
> >
> > I don't think we have reached to a conclusion?? I remember there were
> > three options.
> > 1) add a new 64bit field
> > 2) use userdata/udata64
> > 3) use hash
> >
> > I still prefer 1) but if people here think that more fields will have to
> be added
> > in the near feature then 2) would be my next preference. But, if we just
> > have some unclear anxiety (like the depletion of IPv4 address :-), 1)
> would
> > still be good.
> >
> > But, 3) is my least preference as a Rx mbuf still can have both flow ID
> and
> > metadata.
> >
> > We still need more input/discussion.
>
> Option 1 was not favored in discussions so far, see RFC email chain.
> Option 2 is unwanted since there may be applications using
> userdata/udata64.
> Currently we see use of metadata in tx only, hence option 3 is preferred.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yongseok
> >
> > > } fdir; /**< Filter identifier if FDIR enabled */
> > > struct {
> > > uint32_t lo;
> > > --
> > > 1.8.3.1
> > >
>
>
