Hi Ori,
On 10/10/2021 17:04, Ori Kam wrote:
Hi Ivan.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2021 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] ethdev: add port representor item to flow API
Hi Ori,
Thanks a lot for reviewing this.
On 10/10/2021 14:15, Ori Kam wrote:
Hi Ivan,
>From the new patches I saw you choose port_representor and
represented_port
Didn't we agree to go with ETHDEV_PORT and SHADOW_PORT?
Yes, in the previous thread I suggested a different option. But I gave it more
thought and decided to go for
PORT_REPRESENTOR and REPRESENTED_PORT instead. In any case, I apologise for it
being such short
notice.
The only thing that worries me is that the naming are very easy to get wrong.
port_representor and represented_port.
Is that so? In "port representor", the key word is "representor", a noun. In
"represented port", the key
word is "port". Word "represented"
acts like an adjective. More to that, the order of words is chosen on purpose
to prevent someone from
accidentally writing "representOR_port"
in their code, for example. That simply won't compile.
Well, at least, these two are harder to get wrong compared to "employer"
and "employee", for example.
The new names are better because they are paired terms. Each one suggests the
existence of the other
one. This spares one from the need to have wordy explanations of the symmetry
of the diagram.
The new names speak themselves.
Saying "shadow" is in fact vague. The reader doesn't see clearly that it's the
shadow of the ethdev. And, in
turn, "ethdev" is also not as good as "representor". It's even hard to
pronounce because of being a
combination of multiple contractions.
I hope you get the idea.
I get the idea, since my English is not perfect from my view point those are a
bit more confusing and easy
to get wrong but I have no objection to keep them.
Please don't think me forward: my English is not any better. But I just
think that if English is the lingua franca in DPDK and in the community,
then the corresponding rules of the language are supposed to apply.
Lets see what others will think about it.
Also there is an issue with wording if we assume like in previous
thread that DPDK can have both the representor port and also the
represented_port.
While if we look at for example ethdev_port and shadow port are better
defined as ethdev_port -> the port that is closest to the DPDK ethdev
while shadow port is defined as the other side of the ethdev port.
What do you think?
The semantics hasn't changed since the previous thread.
Representor coincides with the ethdev, so it's still the closest port.
And represented port is still the other side. It's all the same in fact.
If both VF and its representor are plugged to DPDK, they represent each other
in fact. Mutual
representors. You can equally name the first one a representor and the other
one a represented port, -
and vice versa.
The new naming doesn't deny both these ports being ethdevs, while the previous
option (ethdev and
shadow) may trick the reader into thinking that only one of the two can be an
ethdev. The reader may
think that this use case (when VF and its representor are plugged to the
application) is completely wrong.
Let's avoid this mistake.
I agree those are semantics and there is no perfect world.
I accept your case.
Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2021 3:05 AM
Subject: [PATCH v2 01/12] ethdev: add port representor item to flow
API ?
For use in "transfer" flows. Supposed to match traffic entering the
embedded switch from the given ethdev.
I would also add a comment that says the since we are in transfer it
means that all rules are located in the E-Switch which means that the
matching is done on the source port of the traffic.
Let me put it clear: I don't mind adding more comments. I can do that, yes. But
look. You say "matching is
done on the source port". Isn't that what "entering the embedded switch FROM the
given ethdev" already
says?
Yes, the idea of this series is to clear everything.
Do you think that someone who just read this commit log can without prior
knowledge of RTE flow
and transfer can fully understand the idea?
Well, the commit log is just an introduction to the diff itself. And,
in the diff, there is more commentary, diagrams, etc. Yes, of course,
I could have added some brief introduction to the commit log on what
RTE flow is and what "transfer" flows stand for, but I believe it's
already described in the existing documentation. However, I have no
strong opinion.
If so I'm, O.K. with leaving the comment as is.
I don't object changing it and probably I should do that in the next
version should more reviewers indicate the same issue.
In most related comment about pharsing I'm giving my view point with all
the comments I got about how much hard it is to create rules and understand the
documentation.
I see.
Unless there is something wrong or misleading I can except most answers and
comments,
but I steel think that sometime it is worth saying them even if it is just for
the developer to think
again if something can be improved.
I'm just trying to use shorter comments in the code and commit logs as a
starting point for being more concise. If necessary, I can extend that.
I think this will also help understand the view point that we are
looking from the point of the switch, and to add the drawing.
Well, as I said, technically, I don't object adding more comments. But the above
description says: "entering
the embedded switch". Doesn't it indicate the viewpoint clear enough? Should I
reword this?
Also, "flow engine" is showed in the diagram. And there are arrows.
Doesn't that explain the viewpoint fully?
I'm ready to discuss / improve.
Yes, but I was thinking about also adding it in the commit log.
I see. In the new version I improve the diagram as suggested. Maybe that
makes the concept clearer. But I keep in mind improving my commit logs.
Must not be combined with direction attributes.
Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru>
---
app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c | 27 ++++++++++
doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst | 2 +
doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst | 4 ++
lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c | 1 +
lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h | 27 ++++++++++
6 files changed, 120 insertions(+)
diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c index
bb22294dd3..a912a8d815 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
@@ -306,6 +306,8 @@ enum index {
ITEM_POL_PORT,
ITEM_POL_METER,
ITEM_POL_POLICY,
+ ITEM_PORT_REPRESENTOR,
+ ITEM_PORT_REPRESENTOR_PORT_ID,
/* Validate/create actions. */
ACTIONS,
@@ -1000,6 +1002,7 @@ static const enum index next_item[] = {
ITEM_GENEVE_OPT,
ITEM_INTEGRITY,
ITEM_CONNTRACK,
+ ITEM_PORT_REPRESENTOR,
END_SET,
ZERO,
};
@@ -1368,6 +1371,12 @@ static const enum index item_integrity_lv[] = {
ZERO,
};
+static const enum index item_port_representor[] = {
+ ITEM_PORT_REPRESENTOR_PORT_ID,
+ ITEM_NEXT,
+ ZERO,
+};
+
static const enum index next_action[] = {
ACTION_END,
ACTION_VOID,
@@ -3608,6 +3617,21 @@ static const struct token token_list[] = {
item_param),
.args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY(struct rte_flow_item_conntrack, flags)),
},
+ [ITEM_PORT_REPRESENTOR] = {
+ .name = "port_representor",
+ .help = "match traffic entering the embedded switch from the
given ethdev",
+ .priv = PRIV_ITEM(PORT_REPRESENTOR,
+ sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_ethdev)),
+ .next = NEXT(item_port_representor),
+ .call = parse_vc,
+ },
+ [ITEM_PORT_REPRESENTOR_PORT_ID] = {
+ .name = "port_id",
+ .help = "ethdev port ID",
+ .next = NEXT(item_port_representor,
NEXT_ENTRY(COMMON_UNSIGNED),
+ item_param),
+ .args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY(struct rte_flow_item_ethdev,
port_id)),
+ },
/* Validate/create actions. */
[ACTIONS] = {
.name = "actions",
@@ -8343,6 +8367,9 @@ flow_item_default_mask(const struct
rte_flow_item
*item)
case RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_PFCP:
mask = &rte_flow_item_pfcp_mask;
break;
+ case RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_PORT_REPRESENTOR:
+ mask = &rte_flow_item_ethdev_mask;
+ break;
default:
break;
}
diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
index 2b42d5ec8c..2e0f590777 100644
--- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
@@ -1425,6 +1425,65 @@ Matches a conntrack state after conntrack action.
- ``flags``: conntrack packet state flags.
- Default ``mask`` matches all state bits.
+Item: ``PORT_REPRESENTOR``
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+Matches traffic entering the embedded switch from the given ethdev.
+
+Term **ethdev** and the concept of **port representor** are synonymous.
+The **represented port** is an *entity* plugged to the embedded
+switch at the opposite end of the "wire" leading to the ethdev.
+
+::
+
+ .------------------------.
+ | PORT_REPRESENTOR | Ethdev (Application Port Referred to by its ID)
+ '------------------------'
+ ||
+ \/
+ .------------------------.
+ | Embedded Switch Port | Logical Port
+ '------------------------'
+ ||
+ ||
+ ||
+ \/
+ .------------------------.
+ | Embedded Flow Engine |
+ '------------------------'
+ :
+ :
+ :
+ :
+ .------------------------.
+ | Embedded Switch Port | Logical Port
+ '------------------------'
+ :
+ :
+ .------------------------.
+ | REPRESENTED_PORT | Net / Guest / Another Ethdev (Same
Application)
+ '------------------------'
+
+
I think this drawing is harder to understand than the one you draw in
the previous thread (A-> ethdev, b-> embedded switch, switch , c-> embedded
switch, d -> represented
entity (shadow port).
Is that so? Here's the previous drawing:
[ A ] <-- ethdev
|
[ B ] <-- embedded switch (logical) port
|
|
|
=============== <-- plane of symmetry
|
|
|
[ C ] <-- embedded switch (logical) port
|
[ D ] <-- represented entity
Technically, these two are exactly the same. Yes, I use precise names instead
of letters (A, B, C, D) and
more formatting, but that should help, not confuse.
And, as I say, in the new one, I don't have to use complex terms like "plane of
symmetry". The names
speak for it themselves.
That was what I was missing and the only difference between the two,
Th plane of symmetry (I'm not sure I like this name) but it is much cleared
them embedded engine.
Embedded engine has meaning for me which is very different.
maybe just replace it with switch? Or Embedded switch?
Agreed. Please see the new (v3) version. I improved the diagrams.
Do they look clearer now? I'm ready to discuss.
+- Incompatibe with `Attribute: Traffic direction`_.
+- Requires `Attribute: Transfer`_.
+
+.. _table_rte_flow_item_ethdev:
+
+.. table:: ``struct rte_flow_item_ethdev``
+
+ +----------+-------------+---------------------------+
+ | Field | Subfield | Value |
+ +==========+=============+===========================+
+ | ``spec`` | ``port_id`` | ethdev port ID |
+ +----------+-------------+---------------------------+
+ | ``last`` | ``port_id`` | upper range value |
+ +----------+-------------+---------------------------+
+ | ``mask`` | ``port_id`` | zeroed for wildcard match |
+ +----------+-------------+---------------------------+
+
+- Default ``mask`` provides exact match behaviour.
+
Actions
~~~~~~~
diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
index 89d4b33ef1..1261cb2bf3 100644
--- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst
@@ -188,6 +188,8 @@ API Changes
Also, make sure to start the actual text at the margin.
=======================================================
+* ethdev: Added item ``PORT_REPRESENTOR`` to flow API.
+
* kvargs: The experimental function ``rte_kvargs_strcmp()`` has been
removed. Its usages have been replaced by a new function
``rte_kvargs_get_with_value()``.
diff --git a/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst
b/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst
index 8ead7a4a71..dcb9f47d98 100644
--- a/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst
@@ -3795,6 +3795,10 @@ This section lists supported pattern items and
their attributes, if any.
- ``conntrack``: match conntrack state.
+- ``port_representor``: match traffic entering the embedded switch
+from the given ethdev
+
+ - ``port_id {unsigned}``: ethdev port ID
+
Actions list
^^^^^^^^^^^^
diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c index
8cb7a069c8..5e9317c6d1 100644
--- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c
+++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c
@@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ static const struct rte_flow_desc_data
rte_flow_desc_item[] = {
MK_FLOW_ITEM(GENEVE_OPT, sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_geneve_opt)),
MK_FLOW_ITEM(INTEGRITY, sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_integrity)),
MK_FLOW_ITEM(CONNTRACK, sizeof(uint32_t)),
+ MK_FLOW_ITEM(PORT_REPRESENTOR, sizeof(struct
rte_flow_item_ethdev)),
};
/** Generate flow_action[] entry. */ diff --git
a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h index
7b1ed7f110..3625fd2c12 100644
--- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
+++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
@@ -574,6 +574,15 @@ enum rte_flow_item_type {
* @see struct rte_flow_item_conntrack.
*/
RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_CONNTRACK,
+
+ /**
+ * [META]
+ *
+ * Matches traffic entering the embedded switch from the given ethdev.
+ *
+ * @see struct rte_flow_item_ethdev
+ */
+ RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_PORT_REPRESENTOR,
};
/**
@@ -1799,6 +1808,24 @@ static const struct rte_flow_item_conntrack
rte_flow_item_conntrack_mask = { }; #endif
+/**
+ * @warning
+ * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior notice
+ *
+ * Provides an ethdev port ID for use with the following items:
+ * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_PORT_REPRESENTOR.
+ */
+struct rte_flow_item_ethdev {
+ uint16_t port_id; /**< ethdev port ID */ };
+
+/** Default mask for items based on struct rte_flow_item_ethdev */
+#ifndef __cplusplus static const struct rte_flow_item_ethdev
+rte_flow_item_ethdev_mask = {
+ .port_id = 0xffff,
+};
+#endif
+
/**
* Matching pattern item definition.
*
--
2.20.1
--
Ivan M
Best,
Ori
--
Ivan M
