Hi Jerin, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 12:00 PM > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] add flow shared action API > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 3:56 PM Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Jerin, > > PSB, > > > > Thanks, > > Ori > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 3:33 PM > > > dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] add flow shared action API > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 3:40 PM Andrey Vesnovaty > > > <andrey.vesnov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Andrey Vesnovaty > > > > (+972)526775512 | Skype: andrey775512 > > > > > > > > > > [..Nip ..] > > > > > > I need to mention the locking issue once again. > > > > If there is a need to maintain "shared session" in the generic rte_flow > layer > > > all > > > > calls to flow_create() with shared action & all delete need to take > > > sharedsession > > > > management locks at least for verification. Lock partitioning is also > > > > bit > > > problematic > > > > since one flow may have more than one shared action. > > > > > > Then, I think better approach would be to introduce > > > rte_flow_action_update() public > > > API which can either take "const struct rte_flow_action []" OR shared > > > context ID, to cater to > > > both cases or something on similar lines. This would allow HW's > > > without have the shared context ID > > > to use the action update. > > > > Can you please explain your idea? > > I see two types of HW schemes supporting action updates without going > through call `rte_flow_destroy()` and call `rte_flow_create()` > - The shared HW action context feature > - The HW has "pattern" and "action" mapped to different HW objects and > action can be updated any time. > Other than above-mentioned RSS use case, another use case would be to > a) create rte_flow and set the action as DROP (Kind of reserving the HW > object) > b) Update the action only when the rest of the requirements ready. > > Any API schematic that supports both notions of HW is fine with me. > I have an idea if the API will be changed to something like this, Rte_flow_shared_action_update(uint16_port port, rte_shared_ctx *ctx, rte_flow_action *action, error) This will enable the application to send a different action than the original one to be switched. Assuming the PMD supports this. Does it answer your concerns?
> > > As I can see if we use the flow_action array it may result in bugs. > > For example, the application created two flows with the same RSS (not using > the context) > > Then he wants to change one flow to use different RSS, but the result will > > that > both flows > > will be changed. > > Sorry. I don't quite follow this. > I was trying to show that there must be some context. But I don’t think this is relevant to your current ideas. > > Also this will enforce the PMD to keep track on all flows which will have > memory penalty for > > some PMDs. Best, Ori
