> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slava Ovsiienko
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:00
> To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>; olivier.m...@6wind.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam
> <or...@mellanox.com>; Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] ethdev: extend flow metadata
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 9:35
> > To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > <tho...@monjalon.net>; olivier.m...@6wind.com
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>; Ori Kam
> > <or...@mellanox.com>; Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] ethdev: extend flow metadata
> >
> > @Olivier, please, take a look at the end of the mail.
> >
> > On 10/29/19 8:19 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> > > Hi, Andrew
> > >
> > > Thank you for the review.
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 18:22
> > >> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > >> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Matan Azrad
> > >> <ma...@mellanox.com>; olivier.m...@6wind.com; Ori Kam
> > >> <or...@mellanox.com>; Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] ethdev: extend flow metadata
> > >>
> > >> On 10/27/19 9:40 PM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote:
> > >>> Currently, metadata can be set on egress path via mbuf tx_metadata
> > >>> field with PKT_TX_METADATA flag and RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META
> > >> matches metadata.
> > >>> This patch extends the metadata feature usability.
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SET_META
> > >>>
> > >>> When supporting multiple tables, Tx metadata can also be set by a
> > >>> rule and matched by another rule. This new action allows metadata
> > >>> to be set as a result of flow match.
> > >>>
> > >>> 2) Metadata on ingress
> > >>>
> > >>> There's also need to support metadata on ingress. Metadata can be
> > >>> set by SET_META action and matched by META item like Tx. The final
> > >>> value set by the action will be delivered to application via
> > >>> metadata dynamic field of mbuf which can be accessed by
> > >> RTE_FLOW_DYNF_METADATA().
> > >>> PKT_RX_DYNF_METADATA flag will be set along with the data.
> > >>>
> > >>> The mbuf dynamic field must be registered by calling
> > >>> rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register() prior to use SET_META action.
> > >>>
> > >>> The availability of dynamic mbuf metadata field can be checked
> > >>> with
> > >>> rte_flow_dynf_metadata_avail() routine.
> > >>>
> > >>> For loopback/hairpin packet, metadata set on Rx/Tx may or may not
> > >>> be propagated to the other path depending on hardware capability.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com>
> > >> Above explanations lack information about "meta" vs "mark" which
> > >> may be set on Rx as well and delivered in other mbuf field.
> > >> It should be explained by one more field is required and rules defined.
> > > There is some story about metadata features.
> > > Initially, there were proposed two metadata related actions:
> > >
> > > - RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_FLAG
> > > - RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_MARK
> > >
> > > These actions set the special flag in the packet metadata, MARK
> > > action stores some specified value in the metadata storage, and, on
> > > the packet receiving PMD puts the flag and value to the mbuf and
> > > applications can see the packet was threated inside flow engine
> > > according to the appropriate RTE flow(s). MARK and FLAG are like
> > > some kind of gateway to transfer some per-packet information from
> > > the flow
> > engine to the application via receiving datapath.
> > >
> > > From the datapath point of view, the MARK and FLAG are related to
> > > the
> > receiving side only.
> > > It would useful to have the same gateway on the transmitting side
> > > and there was the feature of type RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META was
> > proposed.
> > > The application can fill the field in mbuf and this value will be
> > > transferred to
> > some field in the packet metadata inside the flow engine.
> > > It did not matter whether these metadata fields are shared because
> > > of MARK and META items belonged to different domains (receiving and
> > transmitting) and could be vendor-specific.
> > >
> > > So far, so good, DPDK proposes some entities to control metadata
> > > inside the flow engine and gateways to exchange these values on a
> > > per-
> > packet basis via datapaths.
> > >
> > > As we can see, the MARK and META means are not symmetric, there is
> > > absent action which would allow us to set META value on the
> > > transmitting
> > path. So, the action of type:
> > > - RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SET_META is proposed.
> > >
> > > The next, applications raise the new requirements for packet metadata.
> > > The flow engines are getting more complex, internal switches are
> > > introduced, multiple ports might be supported within the same flow
> > > engine namespace. From the DPDK points of view, it means the packets
> > > might be sent on one eth_dev port and received on the other one, and
> > > the
> > packet path inside the flow engine entirely belongs to the same
> > hardware device. The simplest example is SR-IOV with PF, VFs and the
> representors.
> > > And there is a brilliant opportunity to provide some out-of-band
> > > channel to
> > transfer some extra data
> > > from one port to another one, besides the packet data itself.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Above explanations lack information about "meta" vs "mark" which
> > >> may be set on Rx as well and delivered in other mbuf field.
> > >> It should be explained by one more field is required and rules defined.
> > >> Otherwise we can endup in half PMDs supporting mark only, half PMDs
> > >> supporting meta only and applications in an interesting situation
> > >> to make a choice which one to use.
> > > There is no "mark" vs "meta". MARK and META means are kept for
> > > compatibility issues and legacy part works exactly as before. The
> > > trials (with flow_validate) is supposed to check whether PMD
> > > supports MARK or META feature on appropriate domain. It depends on
> > > PMD implementation, configuration and underlaying HW/FW/kernel
> > > capabilities
> > and should be resolved in runtime.
> >
> > The trials a way, but very tricky way. My imagination draws me
> > pictures how an application code could look like in attempt to use
> > either mark or meta for Rx only and these pictures are not nice.
> Agree, trials is not the best way.
> For now there is no application trying to choose mark or meta, because
> these ones belonged to other domains, and extension is newly introduced.
> So, the applications using mark will continue use mark, the same is regarding
> meta.
> The new application definitely will ask for both mark and of them, we have
> the requirements from customers - "give us as many through bits as you
> can".
> This new application just may refuse to work if metadata features are not
> detected, because relays on it strongly.
> BTW, trials are not so complex: rte_flow_validate(mark),
> rte_flow_validate_metadata() and that's it.
>
> > May be it will look acceptable when mark becomes a dynamic since usage
> > of either one or another dynamic field is definitely easier than usage
> > of either fixed or dynamic field.
> At least in PMD datapath it does not look very ugly.
> >
> > May be dynamic field for mark at fixed offset should be introduced in
> > the release or the nearest future? It will allow to preserve ABI up to
> > 20.11 and provide future proof API.
> > The trick is to register dynamic meta field at fixed offset at start
> > of a day to be sure that it is guaranteed to succeed.
> > It sounds like it is a transition mechanism from fixed to dynamic fields.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > >>> b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h index 4fee105..b821557 100644
> > >>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > >>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > >>> @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@
> > >>> #include <rte_byteorder.h>
> > >>> #include <rte_esp.h>
> > >>> #include <rte_higig.h>
> > >>> +#include <rte_mbuf.h>
> > >>> +#include <rte_mbuf_dyn.h>
> > >>>
> > >>> #ifdef __cplusplus
> > >>> extern "C" {
> > >>> @@ -418,7 +420,8 @@ enum rte_flow_item_type {
> > >>> /**
> > >>> * [META]
> > >>> *
> > >>> - * Matches a metadata value specified in mbuf metadata field.
> > >>> + * Matches a metadata value.
> > >>> + *
> > >>> * See struct rte_flow_item_meta.
> > >>> */
> > >>> RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META,
> > >>> @@ -1263,9 +1266,17 @@ struct
> rte_flow_item_icmp6_nd_opt_tla_eth
> > {
> > >>> #endif
> > >>>
> > >>> /**
> > >>> - * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META.
> > >>> + * @warning
> > >>> + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior
> > >>> + notice
> > >> Is it allowed to make experimental back?
> > > I think we should remove EXPERIMENTAL here. We do not introduce new
> > > feature, but just extend the apply area.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > >>> *
> > >>> - * Matches a specified metadata value.
> > >>> + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META
> > >>> + *
> > >>> + * Matches a specified metadata value. On egress, metadata can be
> > >>> + set either by
> > >>> + * mbuf tx_metadata field with PKT_TX_METADATA flag or
> > >>> + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SET_META. On ingress,
> > >>> + RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SET_META sets
> > >>> + * metadata for a packet and the metadata will be reported via
> > >>> + mbuf metadata
> > >>> + * dynamic field with PKT_RX_DYNF_METADATA flag. The dynamic
> > mbuf
> > >>> + field must be
> > >>> + * registered in advance by rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register().
> > >>> */
> > >>> struct rte_flow_item_meta {
> > >>> rte_be32_t data;
> > >> [snip]
> > >>
> > >>> @@ -2429,6 +2447,55 @@ struct rte_flow_action_set_mac {
> > >>> uint8_t mac_addr[RTE_ETHER_ADDR_LEN];
> > >>> };
> > >>>
> > >>> +/**
> > >>> + * @warning
> > >>> + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior
> > >>> +notice
> > >>> + *
> > >>> + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SET_META
> > >>> + *
> > >>> + * Set metadata. Metadata set by mbuf tx_metadata field with
> > >>> + * PKT_TX_METADATA flag on egress will be overridden by this action.
> > >>> +On
> > >>> + * ingress, the metadata will be carried by mbuf metadata dynamic
> > >>> +field
> > >>> + * with PKT_RX_DYNF_METADATA flag if set. The dynamic mbuf field
> > >>> +must be
> > >>> + * registered in advance by rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register().
> > >>> + *
> > >>> + * Altering partial bits is supported with mask. For bits which
> > >>> +have never
> > >>> + * been set, unpredictable value will be seen depending on driver
> > >>> + * implementation. For loopback/hairpin packet, metadata set on
> > >>> +Rx/Tx may
> > >>> + * or may not be propagated to the other path depending on HW
> > >> capability.
> > >>> + *
> > >>> + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_META matches metadata.
> > >>> + */
> > >>> +struct rte_flow_action_set_meta {
> > >>> + rte_be32_t data;
> > >>> + rte_be32_t mask;
> > >> As I understand tx_metadata is host endian. Just double-checking.
> > >> Is a new dynamic field host endian or big endian?
> > >> I definitely would like to see motivation in comments why data/mask
> > >> are big- endian here.
> > > metadata is opaque value, endianness does not matter, there are no
> > > some special motivations for choosing endiannes.
> > > rte_flow_item_meta() structure provides data with rte_be32_t type,
> > > so meta related action does
> > the same.
> >
> > Endianness of meta in mbuf and flow API should match and it must be
> Yes, and they match (for meta), both are rte_be32_t. OK, will emphasize it in
> docs.
>
> > documented. Endianness is important if a HW supports less bits since
> > it makes a hit for application to use LSB first if the bit space is
> > sufficient.
> > mark is defined as host-endian (uint32_t) and I think meta should be
> > the same. Otherwise it complicates even more either mark or meta usage
> > as discussed above .
> mark is mark, meta is meta, these ones are not interrelated (despite they are
> becoming similar). And there is no choice between mark and meta.
> It is not obvious we should have the same endianness for both.
> There are some applications using this legacy features, so there might be
> compatibility issues either.
>
> >
> > Yes, I think that rte_flow_item_meta should be fixed since both mark
> > and tx_metadata are host-endian.
> >
> > (it says nothing about HW interface which is vendor specific and
> > vendor PMDs should care about it)
> Handling this in PMD might introduce the extra endianness conversion in
> datapath, impacting performance. Not nice, IMO.
Update: I've reviewed other [META] items/actions, all of them are in
host endianness. OK, we are moving tx_metadata to dynfield, it seems to
be good point to alter metadata endianness. And I see the way to avoid
conversions in data path
With best regards, Slava
> >
> > > I could assume the origin of selecting bigendian type was the
> > > endianness of metadata field in Tx descriptor of ConnectX NICs.
> > >
> > >>> +};
> > >>> +
> > >>> +/* Mbuf dynamic field offset for metadata. */ extern int
> > >>> +rte_flow_dynf_metadata_offs;
> > >>> +
> > >>> +/* Mbuf dynamic field flag mask for metadata. */ extern uint64_t
> > >>> +rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask;
> > >> These two global variables look frightening to me.
> > >> It does not look good to me.
> > > For me too. But we need the performance, these ones are intended for
> > > usage in datapath, any overhead is painful.
> >
> > @Olivier, could you share your thoughts, please.
> >
> > Andrew.
>
> With best regards, Slava
