On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:32 PM Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > Hi Jerin, > > I think that we are not on the same page and I'm missing some critical info > to decide > on the best approch. > > Can we please have a short meeting so you can explain to me about this > feature? > > I think it will be good if Thomas, Ferruh and Andrew could join.
Sure, Ori. Is 2 PM UTC on 29th Nov(Monday) on https://meet.jit.si/dpdk is fine for you/Thomas/Ferruh/Andrew? If not, Please suggest some time. > > Best, > Ori > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2021 1:12 PM > > To: Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] ethdev: support priority based flow > > control > > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 9:30 PM Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 12:48 PM > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 3:01 PM Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jerin, > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 12:58 PM > > > > > > To: Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 3:20 PM Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jerin, > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ori, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for my late response, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 11:49 AM > > > > > > > > To: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] ethdev: support priority > > > > > > > > based flow control > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 6:32 PM <jer...@marvell.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_priority_flow_ctrl_set() based API is not generic > > > > > > > > > as it > > > > > > > > > can not support other than VLAN priority mapping to PFC > > > > > > > > > traffic class. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Introducing RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PFC_SET_TC rte_flow action to > > > > > > > > > set the traffic class as per 802.1Qbb specification. This > > > > > > > > > will enable, > > > > > > > > > Traffic class(8bit) to be selected based on any packet field > > > > > > > > > like DSCP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, making it as rte_flow action will enable fine control on > > > > > > > > > traffic class selection to a specific queue or VF etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ping. If there are no comments on RFC, Planning to send v1 for > > > > > > > > 22.02. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All the set type of functions are going to be deprecated. > > > > > > > you should use RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_MODIFY_FIELD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the item that you are matching on when using rte_flow? Is > > > > > > > it part of the tci in the vlan > > > > item? > > > > > > > > > > > > TC can be VLAN TCI field or DSCP field in IP header or any other > > > > > > field > > > > > > in packet. > > > > > > We need to set the traffic class as per 802.1Qbb specification, May > > > > > > I > > > > > > know how the "modify" > > > > > > attribute helps here. It should be a "set" operation. Right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, in the rte_flow_action_modify_field there is what operation you > > > > > want to do, > > > > > in this case the action should be set. > > > > > > > > But RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_MODIFY_FIELD used for modify the packet > > > > content[1]. RIght? > > > > In this case, it is more of sideband data not anything on packet > > > > content. If so, explicit action > > > > makes sense. Right? > > > > > > > > > > It looks like I'm missing something, > > > If you don't want to change the packet and this is just data, > > > why not use tag/mark/flag/metadata? > > > > > > Who should get this data? > > > If the packet is hairpined and the packet is sent to wire this info > > > should be part > > > of the packet right? > > > > No. Here is what I envisioned for working this, > > User add riles like this. > > > > Patten: VLAN TCI is value X or DSCP value Y > > Action: RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PFC_SET_TC with an value for TC(8bit > > defined in 802.1Qbb) > > Driver use this rule to enable TC (flow control) with that value for > > the given VLAN TCI == X > > > > tag/mark/flag/metadata used to embed something in mbuf. Here, This > > action establishes, For a given > > flow what TC value needs to be enabled(it does not need to be given in > > mbuf or packet for application to use). > > It just establishes the TC wiring for flow control enablement for a > > given pattern. > > Is it adding up? > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_MODIFY_FIELD > > > > * > > > > * Modify a destination header field according to the specified > > > > * operation. Another field of the packet can be used as a source as > > > > well > > > > * as tag, mark, metadata, immediate value or a pointer to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I assume that you are trying to set the VLAN tag priority field right? > > > > > > > > Both VLAN tag and/or DSCP field. > > > > > > > > > > Going back to the above comment so you are changing something in the > > > packet. > > > > No. See above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Planning to submit the testpmd and cnxk ethdev driver changes > > > > > > > > > after receiving > > > > > > > > > the feedback on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 24 > > > > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c | 1 + > > > > > > > > > lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h | 27 > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > > > > > > > b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > > > > > > > index 2b42d5ec8c..e59f8a2902 100644 > > > > > > > > > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > > > > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > > > > > > > > > @@ -2999,6 +2999,30 @@ which is set in the packet meta-data > > > > > > > > > (i.e. struct > > > > > > ``rte_mbuf::sched::color``) > > > > > > > > > | ``meter_color`` | Packet color | > > > > > > > > > +-----------------+--------------+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +Action: ``PFC_SET_TC`` > > > > > > > > > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +Set traffic class as per PFC (802.1Qbb) specification. > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +This action must be used with any of the following action. > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +- ``RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_QUEUE`` > > > > > > > > > +- ``RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_RSS`` > > > > > > > > > +- ``RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PF`` > > > > > > > > > +- ``RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_VF`` > > > > > > > > > +- ``RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PHY_PORT`` > > > > > > > > > +- ``RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PORT_ID`` > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? All the above actions are terminating actions so if I want > > > > > > > ot match on the value > > > > > > > it doesn't make sense to have it only on the last rule. > > > > > > > > > > > > In PFC, we are specifying, Given TC needs to steer to specific > > > > > > Queue, > > > > > > RSS, PF etc. > > > > > > Not sure how other actions are relevant for SET_TC action. Do you > > > > > > have any > > > > > > specific action in mind where SET_TC valid in addition to above > > > > > > actions > > > > > > > > > > > First what happens in case of egress traffic? There is no dest action. > > > > > > > > It will be invalid. I can change the documentation to specify egress > > > > direction is not valid. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > Why not? Isn't it possible that application will want to send some packet > > > with this value? > > > > This is Rx Flow control(8bit TC value defined in 802.1Qbb), Not > > relevant when using on Tx. > > > > > > > > > > Second what happens if for example the priority is based on the outer > > > > > tunnel > > > > > which I want decap and at a latter stage I want to do connection > > > > > tracking and only > > > > > if everything is correct I want to send this packet to a queue? > > > > > > > > Which is fine with the current scheme of things as per the > > > > documentation, > > > > "This action must be used with any of the following action." it does > > > > not preclude to > > > > use of any other action. If it is not clear, we can reword like below, > > > > --- > > > > This action must be used with any of the following action and not > > > > limited to > > > > using any of other actions in conjunction with the following action. > > > > --- > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > Like stated above I can see use case where you want to set this value at > > > the start > > > of the pipe and then based on this value act. > > > > > > For example: > > > 1. decap the packet and based on the tunnel set this value and jump to > > > connection tracking group. > > > 2. run connection tracking and jump to next table > > > 3. Based on the connection tracking and the TC value send to some queue. > > > > Yes. It is possible to have decap + connection tracking + > > RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PFC_SET_TC + > > [RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_QUEUE or RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_RSS or > > RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PF or RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_VF or > > RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PHY_PORT or RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PORT_ID] > > cascaded actions. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > Ori > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +.. _table_rte_flow_action_pfc_set_tc: > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +.. table:: PFC_SET_PRIORITY > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > + +-----------------+-------------------------------------+ > > > > > > > > > + | Field | Value | > > > > > > > > > + +=================+=====================================+ > > > > > > > > > + | ``tc`` | Traffic class as per PFC (802.1Qbb) | > > > > > > > > > + +-----------------+-------------------------------------+ > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > Negative types > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c > > > > > > > > > index 8cb7a069c8..75c661159e 100644 > > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c > > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c > > > > > > > > > @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ static const struct rte_flow_desc_data > > > > > > > > > rte_flow_desc_action[] = { > > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > MK_FLOW_ACTION(INDIRECT, 0), > > > > > > > > > MK_FLOW_ACTION(CONNTRACK, sizeof(struct > > > > > > > > > rte_flow_action_conntrack)), > > > > > > > > > + MK_FLOW_ACTION(PFC_SET_TC, sizeof(struct > > > > > > > > > rte_flow_action_pfc_set_tc)), > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > > > > > > > > > index 7b1ed7f110..5298418e9e 100644 > > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > > > > > > > > > @@ -2409,6 +2409,13 @@ enum rte_flow_action_type { > > > > > > > > > * See struct rte_flow_action_meter_color. > > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_METER_COLOR, > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > + /** > > > > > > > > > + * Set traffic class as per PFC (802.1Qbb) > > > > > > > > > specification. > > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > > + * See struct rte_flow_action_pfc_set_tc. > > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > > + RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PFC_SET_TC, > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > > > @@ -3168,6 +3175,26 @@ struct rte_flow_action_meter_color { > > > > > > > > > enum rte_color color; /**< Packet color. */ > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > > > > + * @warning > > > > > > > > > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior > > > > > > > > > notice > > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > > + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PFC_SET_TC > > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > > + * Set traffic class as per PFC (802.1Qbb) specification. > > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > > + * This action must be used any of the following action. > > > > > > > > > + * - RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_QUEUE, > > > > > > > > > + * - RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_RSS, > > > > > > > > > + * - RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PF, > > > > > > > > > + * - RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_VF, > > > > > > > > > + * - RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PHY_PORT, > > > > > > > > > + * - RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PORT_ID > > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What does it mean? I must use it only on rules that have one of > > > > > > > the above actions? > > > > > > > > > > > > See above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +struct rte_flow_action_pfc_set_tc { > > > > > > > > > + uint8_t tc; /**< Traffic class as per PFC (802.1Qbb) > > > > > > > > > specification */ > > > > > > > > > +}; > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > > > * Field IDs for MODIFY_FIELD action. > > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > 2.33.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Ori
