20/05/2020 11:18, Andrey Vesnovaty:
> This commit introduces extension of DPDK flow action API enabling
> modification of single rte_flow_action.
>
> Motivation and example
> ===
> Adding or removing one or more queues to RSS actions cloned in multiple
> flow rules imposes per rule toll for current DPDK flow API; the scenario
> requires for each flow sharing cloned RSS action:
> - call `rte_flow_destroy()`
> - call `rte_flow_create()` with modified RSS action
>
> In order to prevent the overhead of multiple RSS flow rules reconfiguration
> API for in-place flow action modification introduced in this commit.
It seems there is an usability improvement with this new API.
If I understand well, the main motivation is to improve the performance?
The PMD implementation should try to keep a shared object
to benefit of the performance improvement, right?
The existing rte_flow API functions are:
rte_flow_validate()
rte_flow_create()
rte_flow_destroy()
rte_flow_flush()
rte_flow_query()
rte_flow_isolate()
rte_flow_get_aged_flows()
> + # added in 20.08
> + rte_flow_action_ctx_create;
> + rte_flow_action_ctx_destoy;
> + rte_flow_action_ctx_modify;
> + rte_flow_action_ctx_query;
We had "create", "destroy", "query", but no "modify" capability.
The new API is adding 2 things in my opinion:
- shared action object
- "modify" capability (is "update" a better wording?)
About the wording, do we need "ctx"?
I feel rte_flow_action is a good enough prefix for this API,
and should be documented as a shared action object.
I think the word "object" is more meaningful than "context".
Am I missing something?
> + /**
> + * Describes action context.
> + *
> + * Enables multiple rules reference the same action by id/ctx.
> + *
> + * No action specific struct here (void*) since it can be any
> + * action type.
> + */
> + RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_CTX,
Why do we need a new action type?
> @@ -101,6 +101,28 @@ struct rte_flow_ops {
> + /** See rte_flow_action_ctx_destoy() */
> + void *(*action_ctx_create)
> + (struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> + const struct rte_flow_action *action,
> + struct rte_flow_error *error);
> + /** See rte_flow_action_ctx_create() */
> + int (*action_ctx_destroy)
> + (struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> + void *ctx,
> + struct rte_flow_error *error);
> + /** See rte_flow_action_ctx_modify() */
> + int (*action_ctx_modify)
> + (struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> + void *ctx,
> + const void *action_conf,
> + struct rte_flow_error *error);
> + /** See rte_flow_action_ctx_query() */
> + int (*action_ctx_query)
> + (struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> + const void *ctx,
> + void *data,
> + struct rte_flow_error *error);
API functions are directly linked to PMD ops, it looks simple and good.
