Hi Ori,
On 04/10/2021 00:04, Ori Kam wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Sorry for the long review.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru>
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of Rx meta
data
Hi Ori,
On 03/10/2021 14:01, Ori Kam wrote:
Hi Ivan,
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru>
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 12:30 PM data
Hi Ori,
Thanks for reviewing this.
No problem.
On 03/10/2021 10:42, Ori Kam wrote:
Hi Andrew and Ivan,
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery
of Rx meta data
On 9/30/21 10:07 PM, Ivan Malov wrote:
Hi Ori,
On 30/09/2021 17:59, Ori Kam wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Sorry for jumping in late.
No worries. That's OK.
I have a concern that this patch breaks other PMDs.
It does no such thing.
From the rst file " One should negotiate flag delivery beforehand"
since you only added this function for your PMD all other PMD will
fail.
I see that you added exception in the examples, but it doesn't
make sense that applications will also need to add this exception
which is not documented.
Say, you have an application, and you use it with some specific PMD.
Say, that PMD doesn't run into the problem as ours does. In other
words, the user can insert a flow with action MARK at any point
and get mark delivery working starting from that moment without
any problem. Say, this is exactly the way how it works for you at
the
moment.
Now. This new API kicks in. We update the application to invoke it
as early as possible. But your PMD in question still doesn't
support this API. The comment in the patch says that if the method
returns ENOTSUP, the application should ignore that without
batting an eyelid. It should just keep on working as it did before
the introduction of
this API.
I understand that it is nice to write in the patch comment that
application should disregard this function in case of ENOTSUP but in
a few month someone will read the official doc, where it is stated
that this function call is a must and then what do you think the
application will do?
I think that the correct way is to add this function to all PMDs.
Another option is to add to the doc that if the function is
returning ENOTSUP the application should assume that all is supported.
So from this point of view there is API break.
So, you mean an API breakage in some formal sense? If the doc is
fixed in accordance with the second option you suggest, will it
suffice to avoid this formal API breakage?
Yes, but I think it will be better to add the missing function.
More specific example:
Say, the application doesn't mind using either "RSS + MARK" or
tunnel offload. What it does right now is attempt to insert tunnel
flows first and, if this fails, fall back to "RSS + MARK". With
this API, the application will try to invoke this API with
"USER_MARK | TUNNEL_ID" in adapter initialised state. If the PMD
says that it can only enable the tunnel offload, then the
application will get the knowledge that it doesn't make sense to
even try inserting "RSS + MARK" flows. It just can skip useless
actions. But if the PMD doesn't support the method, the
application will see ENOTSUP and handle this
gracefully: it will make no assumptions about what's guaranteed to
be supported and what's not and will just keep on its old behavior:
try to insert a flow, fail, fall back to another type of flow.
I fully agree with your example, and think that this is the way to
go, application should supply as much info as possible during startup.
Right.
My question/comment is the negotiated result means that all of the
actions are supported on the same rule?
for example if application wants to add mark and tag on the same rule.
(I know it doesn't make much sense) and the PMD can support both of
them but not on the same rule, what should it return?
Or for example if using the mark can only be supported if no decap
action is set on this rule what should be the result?
From my undstanding this function is only to let the PMD know that
on some rules the application will use those actions, the checking
if the action combination is valid only happens on validate function right?
This API does not bind itself to flow API. It's *not* about enabling
support for metadata *actions* (they are conducted entirely *inside*
the NIC). It's about enabling *delivery* of metadata from the NIC to host.
Good point so why not use the same logic as the metadata and register it?
Since in any case, this is something in the mbuf so maybe this should be the
answer?
I didn't catch your thought. Could you please elaborate on it?
The metadata action just like the mark or flag is used to give application
data that was set by a flow rule.
To enable the metadata the application must register the metadata field.
Since this happens during the creation of the mbuf it means that it must be
created before the device start.
I understand that the mark and flag don't need to be registered in the mbuf
since they have saved space but from application point of view there is no
difference between the metadata and mark, so why does negotiate function
doesn't handle the metadata?
I hope this is clearer.
Thank you. That's a lot clearer.
I inspected struct rte_flow_action_set_meta as well as
rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register(). The latter API doesn't require that
applications invoke it precisely before adapter start. It says "must be
called prior to use SET_META action", and the comment before the
structure says just "in advance". So, at a bare minimum, the API
contract could've been made more strict with this respect. However, far
more important points are as follows:
1) This API enables delivery of this "custom" metadata between the PMD
and the application, whilst the API under review, as I noted before,
negotiates delivery of various kinds of metadata between the NIC and the
PMD. These are two completely different (albeit adjacent) stages of
packet delivery process.
2) This API doesn't negotiate anything with the PMD. It doesn't interact
with the PMD at all. It just reserves extra room in mbufs for the
metadata field and exits.
3) As a consequence of (3), the PMD can't immediately learn about this
field being enabled. It's forced to face this fact at some deferred
point. If the PMD, for instance, learns about that during adapter start
and if it for some reason decides to deny the use of this field, it
won't be able to convey its decision to the application. As a result,
the application will live in the wrong assumption that it has
successfully enabled the feature.
4) Even if we add similar APIs to "register" more kinds of metadata
(flag, mark, tunnel ID, etc) and re-define the meaning of all these APIs
to say that not only they enable delivery of the metadata between the
PMD and the application but also enable the HW transport to get the
metadata delivered from the NIC to the PMD itself, we won't be able to
use this set of APIs to actually *negotiate* something. The order of
invocations will be confusing to the application. If the PMD can't
combine some of these features, it won't be able to communicate this
clearly to the application. It will have to silently disregard some of
the "registered" features. And this is something that we probably want
to avoid. Right?
But I tend to agree that the API under review could have one more (4th)
flag to negotiate delivery of this "custom" metadata from the NIC to the
PMD. At the same time, enabling delivery of this data from the PMD to
the application will remain in the responsibility domain of
rte_flow_dynf_metadata_register().
Say, you insert a flow rule to mark some packets. The NIC, internally
(in the
e-switch) adds the mark to matching packets. Yes, in the boundaries
of the NIC HW, the packets bear the mark on them. It has been set,
yes. But when time comes to *deliver* the packets to the host, the
NIC (at least, in net/sfc
case) has two options: either provide only a small chunk of the
metadata for each packet *to the host*, which doesn't include mark
ID, flag and RSS hash, OR, alternatively, provide the full set of
metadata. In the former option, the mark is simply not delivered.
Once again: it *has been set*, but simply will not be *delivered to the
host*.
So, this API is about negotiating *delivery* of metadata. In pure
technical sense. And the set of flags that this API returns indicates
which kinds of metadata the NIC will be able to deliver simultaneously.
For example, as I understand, in the case of tunnel offload, MLX5
claims Rx mark entirely for tunnel ID metadata, so, if an application
requests "MARK | TUNNEL_ID" with this API, this PMD should probably
want to respond with just "TUNNEL_ID". The application will see the
response and realise that, even if it adds its *own* (user) action
MARK to a flow and if the flow is not rejected by the PMD, it won't
be able to see the mark in the received mbufs (or the mark will be
incorrect).
So what should the application do if on some flows it wants MARK and on
other FLAG?
You mentioned flows, so I'd like to stress this out one more time: what this
API cares about is solely the possibility to deliver metadata between the NIC
and the host. The host == the PMD (*not* application).
I understand that you are only talking about enabling the action,
meaning to let the PMD know that at some point there will be a rule
that will use the mark action for example.
Is my understanding correct?
Not really. The causal relationships are as follows. The application
comes to realise that it will need to use, say, action MARK in flows.
This, in turn, means that, in order to be able to actually see the mark
in received packets, the application needs to ensure that a) the NIC
will be able to deliver the mark to the PMD and b) that the PMD will be
able to deliver the mark to the application. In particular, in the case
of Rx mark, (b) doesn't need to be negotiated = field "mark" is anyway
provisioned in the mbuf structure, so no need to enable it. But (a)
needs to be negotiated. Hence this API.
I don't understand your last comment about host == PMD since at the end
this value should be given to the application.
Two different steps, Ori, two different steps. The first one is to
deliver the mark from the NIC to the PMD. And the second one is to
deliver the mark from the PMD to the application. As you might
understand, mbufs get filled out on the second step. That's it.
From DPDK viewpoint both of them can't be shared on the same rule
(they are using the same space in mbuf) so the application will never
ask for both of them in the same rule but he can on some rules ask for
mark while on other request for FLAG, even in your code you added both
of them.
So what should the PMD return if it can support both of them just not
at the same rule?
Please see above. This is not about rules. This is not about the way how flag
and mark are presented *by* the PMD *to* the application in mbufs.
Simultaneous use of actions FLAG and MARK in flows must be ruled out by
rte_flow_validate() / rte_flow_create(). The way how flag and mark are
*represented* in mbufs belongs in mbuf library responsibility domain.
Consider the following operational sequence:
1) The NIC has a packet, which has metadata associated with it;
2) The NIC transfers this packet to the host;
3) The PMD sees the packet and its metadata;
4) The PMD represents whatever available metadata in mbuf format.
Features negotiated by virtue of this API (for instance, FLAG and MARK)
enable delivery of these kinds of metadata between points (2) and (3).
And the problem of flag / mark co-existence in mbufs sits at point (4).
-> Completely different problems, in fact.
Agree.
One option is to document that the supported values are not per rule
but for the entire port. For example in the example you gave MLX5 will
support mark + flag but will not support mark + tunnel.
Yes, for the port. Flow rules are a don't care to this API.
Also considering your example, the negotiation may result in subpar result.
taking your example the PMD returned TUNNEL_ID maybe application
would prefer to have the mark and not the TUNNEL_ID. I understand that
application can check and try again with just the MARK.
Exactly. The Application can repeat negotiation with just MARK. Is there any
problem with that?
I understand that the application can negotiate again and again.
I just don't like that the PMD has logic and selects what he thinks will be
best.
I wanted to suggest that the PMD will just tell what are the conflicts and the
application
will negotiate again based on its logic.
Well, I'm not saying that letting the PMD decide on the optimal feature
subset is the only reasonable MO. But it simplifies the negotiation
procedure a lot. Conveying conflicts and feature inter-dependencies to
the application might be rather complex and prone to errors.
At this point I believe it's important to clarify: the original intent
is to assume that the PMD will first consider enabling all requested
features. Only in the case when it fails to do so should it come up with
the optimal subset.
You are inserting logic to the PMD, maybe the function should just
fail maybe returning the conflicting items?
Why return conflicting items? The optimal subset (from the PMD's
perspective) should be returned. It's a silver lining. In the end, the
application
can learn which features can be enabled and in what combinations. And it
can rely on the outcome of the negotiation process.
That is my point this is PMD perspective, not the application.
how can a PMD define an optimal subset? How can it know what is more
important to the application?
How does "ls" command know the optimal sort mode? Why does it prefer
sorting by name over sorting by date? Thanks to its options, it allows
the user to express their own preference. So does the API in question.
If the application knows that tunnel offload is more important to it
(compared to MARK, for instance), it can request just TUNNEL_ID. Why
complicate this?
Also, the PMD logic is internal so if for some reason
the PMD selected the best for the application by chance, so the application
learns
that this is a good value for him. A release later the internal PMD logic
changes
for example, a new feature was added, other customer requests.
since this is PMD the original app is not aware of this change and may fail.
The same argumentation can equally apply to default RSS table, for
example. What if an application gets accustomed to the round-robin table
being default in some specific PMD (and the PMD maintainers change
default RSS table out of a sudden)? Oops!
The truth is that the application shouldn't bind itself to some specific
vendor / PMD. In any case. Hence the negotiation process. It's just a
building block for some automation in the application.
We both agree that the application should check the result and renegotiate if
needed
I only suggested that the PMD will only return error and not assume he knows
best.
I believe we should give this more thought. Maybe Andrew can join this
conversation.
But some other PMDs (net/sfc, for instance) claim only a small fraction of
bits
in Rx mark to deliver tunnel ID information. Remaining bits are still
available
for delivery of *user* mark ID. Please see an example at
https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210929205730.775-2-
ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru/
. In this case, the PMD may want to return both flags in the response:
"MARK | TUNNEL_ID". This way, the application knows that both features
are enabled and available for use.
Now. I anticipate more questions asking why wouldn't we prefer flow API
terminology or why wouldn't we add an API for negotiating support for
metadata *actions* and not just metadata *delivery*. There's an answer.
Always has been.
The thing is, the use of *actions* is very complicated. For example, the
PMD
may support action MARK for "transfer" flows but not for non-"transfer"
ones. Also, simultaneous use of multiple different metadata actions may
not
be possible. And, last but not least, if we force the application to check
support for *actions* on action-after-action basis, the order of checks will
be
very confusing to applications.
Previously, in this thread, Thomas suggested to go for exactly this type of
API, to check support for actions one-by-one, without any context
("transfer" / non-"transfer"). I'm afraid, this won't be OK.
+1 to keeping it as a separated API. (I agree actions limitation are very
complex metrix)
In any case I think this is good idea and I will see how we can add a
more generic approach of this API to the new API that I'm going to
present.
So no breakages with this API.
Please see more comments inline.
Thanks,
Ori
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 2:20 PM
Subject: [PATCH v3 1/5] ethdev: add API to negotiate delivery of
Rx meta data
Delivery of mark, flag and the likes might affect small packet
performance.
If these features are disabled by default, enabling them in
started state without causing traffic disruption may not always be
possible.
Let applications negotiate delivery of Rx meta data beforehand.
Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Rybchenko
<andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
Reviewed-by: Andy Moreton <amore...@xilinx.com>
Acked-by: Ray Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu>
Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com>
---
app/test-flow-perf/main.c | 21 ++++++++++++
app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 26 +++++++++++++++
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst | 9 ++++++
lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h | 19 +++++++++++
lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 25 ++++++++++++++
lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 45
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h | 12 +++++++
lib/ethdev/version.map | 3 ++
8 files changed, 160 insertions(+)
diff --git a/app/test-flow-perf/main.c b/app/test-flow-perf/main.c
index 9be8edc31d..48eafffb1d 100644
--- a/app/test-flow-perf/main.c
+++ b/app/test-flow-perf/main.c
@@ -1760,6 +1760,27 @@ init_port(void)
rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Error: can't init mbuf
pool\n");
for (port_id = 0; port_id < nr_ports; port_id++) {
+ uint64_t rx_meta_features = 0;
+
+ rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG;
+ rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK;
+
+ ret = rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate(port_id,
&rx_meta_features);
+ if (ret == 0) {
+ if (!(rx_meta_features &
RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG)) {
+ printf(":: flow action FLAG will not affect Rx
mbufs on port=%u\n",
+ port_id);
+ }
+
+ if (!(rx_meta_features &
RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK)) {
+ printf(":: flow action MARK will not affect Rx
mbufs on port=%u\n",
+ port_id);
+ }
+ } else if (ret != -ENOTSUP) {
+ rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Error when negotiating Rx
meta features on port=%u: %s\n",
+ port_id, rte_strerror(-ret));
+ }
+
ret = rte_eth_dev_info_get(port_id, &dev_info);
if (ret != 0)
rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, diff --git
a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
97ae52e17e..7a8da3d7ab 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
@@ -1485,10 +1485,36 @@ static void
init_config_port_offloads(portid_t pid, uint32_t socket_id) {
struct rte_port *port = &ports[pid];
+ uint64_t rx_meta_features = 0;
uint16_t data_size;
int ret;
int i;
+ rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG;
+ rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK;
+ rx_meta_features |= RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID;
+
+ ret = rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate(pid, &rx_meta_features);
+ if (ret == 0) {
+ if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG)) {
+ TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow action FLAG will not
affect Rx mbufs on port %u\n",
+ pid);
+ }
+
+ if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK))
{
+ TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow action MARK will not
affect Rx mbufs on port %u\n",
+ pid);
+ }
+
+ if (!(rx_meta_features & RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID)) {
+ TESTPMD_LOG(INFO, "Flow tunnel offload support
might be limited or unavailable on port %u\n",
+ pid);
+ }
+ } else if (ret != -ENOTSUP) {
+ rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Error when negotiating Rx meta
features on port %u: %s\n",
+ pid, rte_strerror(-ret));
+ }
+
port->dev_conf.txmode = tx_mode;
port->dev_conf.rxmode = rx_mode;
diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
index 19356ac53c..6674d4474c 100644
--- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
@@ -106,6 +106,15 @@ New Features
Added command-line options to specify total number of
processes and
current process ID. Each process owns subset of Rx and Tx
queues.
+* **Added an API to negotiate delivery of specific parts of Rx
+meta
+data**
+
+ A new API, ``rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate()``, was added.
+ The following parts of Rx meta data were defined:
+
+ * ``RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG``
+ * ``RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK``
+ * ``RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID``
+
Removed Items
-------------
diff --git a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h index 40e474aa7e..96e0c60cae
100644
--- a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
+++ b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
@@ -789,6 +789,22 @@ typedef int
(*eth_get_monitor_addr_t)(void
*rxq, typedef int (*eth_representor_info_get_t)(struct
rte_eth_dev
*dev,
struct rte_eth_representor_info *info);
+/**
+ * @internal
+ * Negotiate delivery of specific parts of Rx meta data.
+ *
+ * @param dev
+ * Port (ethdev) handle
+ *
+ * @param[inout] features
+ * Feature selection buffer
+ *
+ * @return
+ * Negative errno value on error, zero otherwise */ typedef
+int (*eth_rx_meta_negotiate_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
+ uint64_t *features);
+
/**
* @internal A structure containing the functions exported by
an Ethernet driver.
*/
@@ -949,6 +965,9 @@ struct eth_dev_ops {
eth_representor_info_get_t representor_info_get;
/**< Get representor info. */
+
+ eth_rx_meta_negotiate_t rx_meta_negotiate;
+ /**< Negotiate delivery of specific parts of Rx meta data. */
};
/**
diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
index daf5ca9242..49cb84d64c 100644
--- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
+++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
@@ -6310,6 +6310,31 @@ rte_eth_representor_info_get(uint16_t
port_id,
return eth_err(port_id, (*dev->dev_ops-
representor_info_get)(dev, info)); }
+int
+rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate(uint16_t port_id, uint64_t
*features) {
+ struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
+
+ RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
+ dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
+
+ if (dev->data->dev_configured != 0) {
+ RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR,
+ "The port (id=%"PRIu16") is already configured\n",
+ port_id);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
+ if (features == NULL) {
+ RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Invalid features (NULL)\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops-
rx_meta_negotiate,
-ENOTSUP);
+ return eth_err(port_id,
+ (*dev->dev_ops->rx_meta_negotiate)(dev,
+features)); }
+
RTE_LOG_REGISTER_DEFAULT(rte_eth_dev_logtype, INFO);
RTE_INIT(ethdev_init_telemetry) diff --git
a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h index
1da37896d8..8467a7a362 100644
--- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
+++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
@@ -4888,6 +4888,51 @@ __rte_experimental int
rte_eth_representor_info_get(uint16_t port_id,
struct rte_eth_representor_info *info);
+/** The ethdev sees flagged packets if there are flows with
+action FLAG. */ #define RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_FLAG
(UINT64_C(1) <<
+0)
+
+/** The ethdev sees mark IDs in packets if there are flows with
+action MARK. */ #define RTE_ETH_RX_META_USER_MARK
(UINT64_C(1) <<
+1)
+
+/** The ethdev detects missed packets if there are "tunnel_set"
+flows in use. */ #define RTE_ETH_RX_META_TUNNEL_ID
(UINT64_C(1)
<<
+2)
+
+/**
+ * @warning
+ * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this API may change without prior notice
+ *
+ * Negotiate delivery of specific parts of Rx meta data.
+ *
+ * Invoke this API before the first rte_eth_dev_configure()
+invocation
+ * to let the PMD make preparations that are inconvenient to do
later.
+ *
+ * The negotiation process is as follows:
+ *
+ * - the application requests features intending to use at least
+some of them;
+ * - the PMD responds with the guaranteed subset of the
requested
+feature set;
+ * - the application can retry negotiation with another set of
+features;
+ * - the application can pass zero to clear the negotiation
+result;
+ * - the last negotiated result takes effect upon the ethdev start.
+ *
+ * If this API is unsupported, the application should gracefully
ignore that.
+ *
+ * @param port_id
+ * Port (ethdev) identifier
+ *
+ * @param[inout] features
+ * Feature selection buffer
+ *
+ * @return
+ * - (-EBUSY) if the port can't handle this in its current
+state;
+ * - (-ENOTSUP) if the method itself is not supported by the
+PMD;
+ * - (-ENODEV) if *port_id* is invalid;
+ * - (-EINVAL) if *features* is NULL;
+ * - (-EIO) if the device is removed;
+ * - (0) on success
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int rte_eth_rx_meta_negotiate(uint16_t port_id, uint64_t
+*features);
I don't think meta is the best name since we also have meta item
and the word meta can be used in other cases.
I'm no expert in naming. What could be a better term for this?
Personally, I'd rather not perceive "meta" the way you describe.
It's not just "meta". It's "rx_meta", and the flags supplied with
this API provide enough context to explain what it's all about.
Thinking overnight about it I'd suggest full "metadata".
Yes, it will name a bit longer, but less confusing versus term META
already used in flow API.
Following my above comments, I think it should be part of the new API
but in any case what about rx_flow_action_negotiate?
See my thoughts above. It makes no sense to negotiate *support for
actions*. Existing "rte_flow_validate()" already does that job. The new
"negotiate Rx metadata* API is all about *delivery* of metadata which is
supposed to be *already* set for the packets *inside* the NIC. So, we
negotiate *delivery from the NIC to the host*. Nothing more.
Agree with your comment but then maybe we should go to the register
approach just like metadata?
Don't you mean "registering mbuf dynamic field / flag" by any chance?
Even if it's technically possible, this may complicate the API contract
because the key idea here is to demand that the application negotiate
metadata delivery at the earliest step possible (before configuring the
port), whilst a dynamic field / flag can be (theoretically) registered
at any time. But, of course, feel free to elaborate on your idea.
Yes, like I said above I don't see a difference between metadata
and mark, at least not from the application usage.
I assume you need this info at device start and by definition
the registration should happen before. (mbuf should be configured
before start)
Please see my thoughts about dynamic fields above.
We should make sure that we all reach an agreement.
+1 I think we can agree that there is a need for letting the PMD
know before the start that some action will be used.
And I'm sorry if I sound picky and hard, this is not my intention.
I'm also doing my best to review this as fast as I can.
My open issues and priorities:
1. the API breakage the possible solution adding support for the rest of the
PMDs / update doc
to say that if the function is not supported the application should assume that
it can still use the mark / flag. -- blocker this must be resolved.
I see.
2. function name. my main issue is that metadata should be just like mark
maybe the solution can be adding metadata flag to this function.
the drawback is that the application needs to calls two functions to configure
metadata. -- high priority but if you can give me good reasoning not just
we don't need to register the mark I guess I will be O.K.
Please see my thoughts above. This API negotiates metadata delivery on
the path between the NIC and the PMD. The metadata mbuf register API
does this on the path between the PMD and the application. So no
contradiction here.
3. If PMD has internal logic in case of conflict or not.
Please think about it. -- low prio I will agree to what you decide.
but if you decide that PMD will have internal logic then this must be documented
so the application will know not to rely on the results.
Please see my reply above. The application can rely on the outcome of
the negotiation (the last negotiated subset of features), but it should
know that if it disagrees with the suggested feature subset, it can
re-negotiate. All fair and square.
Best,
Ori
Best,
Ori
Andrew.
Best,
Ori
--
Ivan M
--
Ivan M
--
Ivan M
