On 9/3/2020 11:11 AM, Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda wrote:
*From:* Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 1, 2020 10:42 PM
*To:* Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda <kirankum...@marvell.com>
*Cc:* Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; or...@mellanox.com; xuanziya...@huawei.com; cloud.wangxiao...@huawei.com; zhouguoy...@huawei.com; rosen...@intel.com; beilei.x...@intel.com; jia....@intel.com; Rasesh Mody <rm...@marvell.com>; Shahed Shaikh <shsha...@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram <ndabilpu...@marvell.com>; qiming.y...@intel.com; qi.z.zh...@intel.com; keith.wi...@intel.com; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; sachin.sax...@nxp.com; wei.zh...@intel.com; johnd...@cisco.com; hyon...@cisco.com; ch...@att.com; ma...@mellanox.com; shah...@mellanox.com; viachesl...@mellanox.com; rahul.lakkire...@chelsio.com; gr...@u256.net; Liron Himi <lir...@marvell.com>; jingjing...@intel.com; xavier.hu...@huawei.com; humi...@huawei.com; yisen.zhu...@huawei.com; somnath.ko...@broadcom.com; jasvinder.si...@intel.com; cristian.dumitre...@intel.com *Subject:* Re: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev][PATCH v7 1/3] ethdev: add level support for RSS offload types

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:27 AM Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda <kirankum...@marvell.com <mailto:kirankum...@marvell.com>> wrote:



     > -----Original Message-----
     > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com 
<mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com>>
     > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 7:08 PM
     > To: Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda <kirankum...@marvell.com
    <mailto:kirankum...@marvell.com>>; Thomas Monjalon
     > <tho...@monjalon.net <mailto:tho...@monjalon.net>>; Andrew Rybchenko
    <arybche...@solarflare.com <mailto:arybche...@solarflare.com>>
     > Cc: dev@dpdk.org <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
    <jer...@marvell.com <mailto:jer...@marvell.com>>;
     > or...@mellanox.com <mailto:or...@mellanox.com>; xuanziya...@huawei.com
    <mailto:xuanziya...@huawei.com>;
     > cloud.wangxiao...@huawei.com <mailto:cloud.wangxiao...@huawei.com>;
    zhouguoy...@huawei.com <mailto:zhouguoy...@huawei.com>;
     > rosen...@intel.com <mailto:rosen...@intel.com>; beilei.x...@intel.com
    <mailto:beilei.x...@intel.com>; jia....@intel.com
    <mailto:jia....@intel.com>; Rasesh Mody
     > <rm...@marvell.com <mailto:rm...@marvell.com>>; Shahed Shaikh
    <shsha...@marvell.com <mailto:shsha...@marvell.com>>; Nithin Kumar
     > Dabilpuram <ndabilpu...@marvell.com <mailto:ndabilpu...@marvell.com>>;
    qiming.y...@intel.com <mailto:qiming.y...@intel.com>;
     > qi.z.zh...@intel.com <mailto:qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; keith.wi...@intel.com
    <mailto:keith.wi...@intel.com>; hemant.agra...@nxp.com
    <mailto:hemant.agra...@nxp.com>;
     > sachin.sax...@nxp.com <mailto:sachin.sax...@nxp.com>; wei.zh...@intel.com
    <mailto:wei.zh...@intel.com>; johnd...@cisco.com 
<mailto:johnd...@cisco.com>;
     > hyon...@cisco.com <mailto:hyon...@cisco.com>; ch...@att.com
    <mailto:ch...@att.com>; ma...@mellanox.com <mailto:ma...@mellanox.com>;
     > shah...@mellanox.com <mailto:shah...@mellanox.com>;
    viachesl...@mellanox.com <mailto:viachesl...@mellanox.com>;
     > rahul.lakkire...@chelsio.com <mailto:rahul.lakkire...@chelsio.com>;
    gr...@u256.net <mailto:gr...@u256.net>; Liron Himi
     > <lir...@marvell.com <mailto:lir...@marvell.com>>; jingjing...@intel.com
    <mailto:jingjing...@intel.com>; xavier.hu...@huawei.com
    <mailto:xavier.hu...@huawei.com>;
     > humi...@huawei.com <mailto:humi...@huawei.com>; yisen.zhu...@huawei.com
    <mailto:yisen.zhu...@huawei.com>;
     > ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com <mailto:ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com>;
    somnath.ko...@broadcom.com <mailto:somnath.ko...@broadcom.com>;
     > jasvinder.si...@intel.com <mailto:jasvinder.si...@intel.com>;
    cristian.dumitre...@intel.com <mailto:cristian.dumitre...@intel.com>
     > Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev][PATCH v7 1/3] ethdev: add level support 
for RSS
     > offload types
     >
     > External Email
     >
     > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     > On 9/1/2020 4:27 AM, kirankum...@marvell.com
    <mailto:kirankum...@marvell.com> wrote:
     > > From: Kiran Kumar K <kirankum...@marvell.com
    <mailto:kirankum...@marvell.com>>
     > >
     > > This patch reserves 2 bits as input selection to select Inner and
     > > outer encapsulation level for RSS computation. It is combined with
     > > existing
     > > ETH_RSS_* to choose Inner or outer layers.
     > > This functionality already exists in rte_flow through level parameter
     > > in RSS action configuration rte_flow_action_rss.
     > >
     > > Signed-off-by: Kiran Kumar K <kirankum...@marvell.com
    <mailto:kirankum...@marvell.com>>
     > > ---
     > > V7 Changes:
     > > * Re-worked to keep it in sync with rte_flow_action_rss and support
     > > upto
     > > 3 levels.
     > > * Addressed testpmd review comments.
     > >
     > >   lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     > >   1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
     > >
     > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
     > > b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h index 70295d7ab..13e49bbd7 100644
     > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
     > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
     > > @@ -552,6 +552,33 @@ struct rte_eth_rss_conf {
     > >   #define RTE_ETH_RSS_L3_PRE64         (1ULL << 53)
     > >   #define RTE_ETH_RSS_L3_PRE96         (1ULL << 52)
     > >
     > > +/*
     > > + * We use the following macros to combine with the above layers to
     > > +choose
     > > + * inner and outer layers or both for RSS computation.
     > > + * bit 50 and 51 are reserved for this.
     > > + */
     > > +
     > > +/** level 0, requests the default behavior. Depending on the packet
     > > + * type, it can mean outermost, innermost, anything in between or 
even no
     > RSS.
     > > + * It basically stands for the innermost encapsulation level RSS
     > > + * can be performed on according to PMD and device capabilities.
     > > + */
     > > +#define ETH_RSS_LEVEL_0         (0ULL << 50)
     >
     > I can see from history how this is involved, but the 'ETH_RSS_LEVEL_0'
    naming is
     > not really clear what it is, the naming in v6 is more clear.
     >
     > What about following one:
     > 0 -> LEVEL_PMD_DEFAULT
     > 1 -> LEVEL_OUTER
     > 2 -> LEVEL_INNER
     > 3 -> LEVEL_INNER_OUTER
     >
     > This doesn't exactly match to rte_flow one, but closer than v6 one. This 
ends
     > with max level 2. And defines a way to say both inner and outer.

    This one looks good to me. If everyone is ok with the proposed changes, I
    will send V8.

How about following one:
0 -> LEVEL_PMD_DEFAULT
1 -> LEVEL_OUTERMOST
2 -> LEVEL_INNERMOST

This way we can avoid any ambiguity especially if stacked tunnel headersbecome 
real.


3 -> LEVEL_INNER_OUTER

But I am not sure if INNER_OUTER has a use case.

Alternatively,

why not just add uint32_t level;

just like in case of rte_flow_action_rss?

It will break ABI but its 20.11.

Thanks

-Ajit

Can I send V8 with this proposal?

0 -> LEVEL_PMD_DEFAULT
1 -> LEVEL_OUTERMOST
2 -> LEVEL_INNERMOST

If anyone want INNER_OUTER, they can specify LEVEL_OUTERMOST| LEVEL_INNERMOST

+1 to INNERMOST & OUTERMOST, and use "LEVEL_OUTERMOST| LEVEL_INNERMOST" for INNER_OUTER.

But the capability reporting is still problematic.
If @Andrew has no objection, I think it is ok to have a v8 and we can continue discussion on it.



     >
     > > +
     > > +/** level 1,  requests RSS to be performed on the outermost packet
     > > + * encapsulation level.
     > > + */
     > > +#define ETH_RSS_LEVEL_1         (1ULL << 50)
     > > +
     > > +/** level 2,  requests RSS to be performed on the
     > > + * specified inner packet encapsulation level, from outermost to
     > > + * innermost (lower to higher values).
     > > + */
     > > +#define ETH_RSS_LEVEL_2            (2ULL << 50)
     >
     > I can see you are trying to copy rte_flow usage, but this doesn't really
    makes
     > sense here. Where the value of the level is defined in this case? If not
    defined
     > how the PMD knows which level to use?
     >
     > > +#define ETH_RSS_LEVEL_MASK (3ULL << 50)
     > > +
     > > +#define ETH_RSS_LEVEL(rss_hf) ((rss_hf & ETH_RSS_LEVEL_MASK) >> 50)
     > > +
     > >   /**
     > >    * For input set change of hash filter, if SRC_ONLY and DST_ONLY of
     > >    * the same level are used simultaneously, it is the same case as
     > > --
     > > 2.25.1
     > >


Reply via email to