> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> > Sent: 20 октября 2021 г. 13:12 > To: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dkozl...@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] Flow entites behavior on port > restart > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On 10/19/21 3:37 PM, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote: > > It is unspecified whether flow rules and indirect actions are kept > > when a port is stopped, possibly reconfigured, and started again. > > Vendors approach the topic differently, e.g. mlx5 and i40e PMD > > disagree in whether flow rules can be kept, and mlx5 PMD would keep > > indirect actions. In the end, applications are greatly affected > > by whatever contract there is and need to know it. > > > > It is proposed to advertise capabilities of keeping flow rules > > and indirect actions (as a special case of shared object) > > using a combination of ethdev info and rte_flow calls. > > Then a bug is fixed in mlx5 PMD that prevented indirect RSS action > > from being kept, and the driver starts advertising the new capability. > > > > Prior discussions: > > 1) http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20210727073121.895620-1- > dkozl...@nvidia.com/ > > 2) http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20210901085516.3647814-1- > dkozl...@nvidia.com/ > > Is there real usecase for keeping flow rules or indirect > actions? > Why does application want to restart port?
Sorry, I don't know of real use cases that would already use this feature. But on the other hand, there was no well-defined API to enable such apps. I can imagine apps adding queues (if their setup after the start is unsupported) and enabling offloads when available resources or traffic pattern changes, e.g. a DDoS attack starts and checksum calculation now wastes cycles on garbage. For indirect actions, as patch 2/6 mentions, persistent semantics are either natural (counters, meters) or just convenient. Working around with shifts for counters or tolerances for meters is possible of course, but it increases application state to manage. For rules, 1. It is worth noting that an app can create many of them before stopping a port, like a rule for each connection. Saving the application from tracking them in such case is a big advantage. If they cannot be restored before the port is started again, there will be a time gap when the traffic is flowing, but no rules process it. This alone could be covered by a distinct capability proposed earlier [1]. 2. However, nowadays, there are apps that create rules on their datapath. If rules are kept, such apps can reconfigure ports without either loosing the rules or having to track them very fast. As it is explained in the comments to patch 1/6 and 2/6, now that rules can exist when the port is not stated, it is logical that they need not be destroyed when the port is stopped. [1]: http://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20211005171914.2936-1-xhavl...@stud.fit.vutbr.cz/
