Hi Andrew, > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> > Sent: Monday, 3 October 2022 12:44 > > On 10/3/22 11:23, Ori Kam wrote: > > Hi Andrew > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> > >> Sent: Monday, 3 October 2022 10:54 > >> On 9/29/22 17:54, Michael Savisko wrote: > >>> In some cases application may receive a packet that should have been > >>> received by the kernel. In this case application uses KNI or other means > >>> to transfer the packet to the kernel. > >>> > >>> With bifurcated driver we can have a rule to route packets matching > >>> a pattern (example: IPv4 packets) to the DPDK application and the rest > >>> of the traffic will be received by the kernel. > >>> But if we want to receive most of the traffic in DPDK except specific > >>> pattern (example: ICMP packets) that should be processed by the > kernel, > >>> then it's easier to re-route these packets with a single rule. > >>> > >>> This commit introduces new rte_flow action which allows application to > >>> re-route packets directly to the kernel without software involvement. > >>> > >>> Add new testpmd rte_flow action 'send_to_kernel'. The application > >>> may use this action to route the packet to the kernel while still > >>> in the HW. > >>> > >>> Example with testpmd command: > >>> > >>> flow create 0 ingress priority 0 group 1 pattern eth type spec 0x0800 > >>> type mask 0xffff / end actions send_to_kernel / end > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Savisko <michael...@nvidia.com> > >>> Acked-by: Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com> > >>> --- > >>> v4: > >>> - improve description comment above > >> RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SEND_TO_KERNEL > >>> > >>> v3: > >>> http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20220919155013.61473-1- > >> michael...@nvidia.com/ > >>> > >>> v2: > >>> http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20220914093219.11728-1- > >> michael...@nvidia.com/ > >>> > >>> --- > >>> app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c | 9 +++++++++ > >>> doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst | 2 ++ > >>> lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c | 1 + > >>> lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h | 12 ++++++++++++ > >>> 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c b/app/test- > pmd/cmdline_flow.c > >>> index 7f50028eb7..042f6b34a6 100644 > >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c > >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c > >>> @@ -612,6 +612,7 @@ enum index { > >>> ACTION_PORT_REPRESENTOR_PORT_ID, > >>> ACTION_REPRESENTED_PORT, > >>> ACTION_REPRESENTED_PORT_ETHDEV_PORT_ID, > >>> + ACTION_SEND_TO_KERNEL, > >>> }; > >>> > >>> /** Maximum size for pattern in struct rte_flow_item_raw. */ > >>> @@ -1872,6 +1873,7 @@ static const enum index next_action[] = { > >>> ACTION_CONNTRACK_UPDATE, > >>> ACTION_PORT_REPRESENTOR, > >>> ACTION_REPRESENTED_PORT, > >>> + ACTION_SEND_TO_KERNEL, > >>> ZERO, > >>> }; > >>> > >>> @@ -6341,6 +6343,13 @@ static const struct token token_list[] = { > >>> .help = "submit a list of associated actions for red", > >>> .next = NEXT(next_action), > >>> }, > >>> + [ACTION_SEND_TO_KERNEL] = { > >>> + .name = "send_to_kernel", > >>> + .help = "send packets to kernel", > >>> + .priv = PRIV_ACTION(SEND_TO_KERNEL, 0), > >>> + .next = NEXT(NEXT_ENTRY(ACTION_NEXT)), > >>> + .call = parse_vc, > >>> + }, > >>> > >>> /* Top-level command. */ > >>> [ADD] = { > >>> diff --git a/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst > >> b/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst > >>> index 330e34427d..c259c8239a 100644 > >>> --- a/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst > >>> +++ b/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst > >>> @@ -4189,6 +4189,8 @@ This section lists supported actions and their > >> attributes, if any. > >>> > >>> - ``ethdev_port_id {unsigned}``: ethdev port ID > >>> > >>> +- ``send_to_kernel``: send packets to kernel. > >>> + > >>> Destroying flow rules > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c > >>> index 501be9d602..627c671ce4 100644 > >>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c > >>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c > >>> @@ -259,6 +259,7 @@ static const struct rte_flow_desc_data > >> rte_flow_desc_action[] = { > >>> MK_FLOW_ACTION(CONNTRACK, sizeof(struct > >> rte_flow_action_conntrack)), > >>> MK_FLOW_ACTION(PORT_REPRESENTOR, sizeof(struct > >> rte_flow_action_ethdev)), > >>> MK_FLOW_ACTION(REPRESENTED_PORT, sizeof(struct > >> rte_flow_action_ethdev)), > >>> + MK_FLOW_ACTION(SEND_TO_KERNEL, 0), > >>> }; > >>> > >>> int > >>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > >>> index a79f1e7ef0..2c15279a3b 100644 > >>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > >>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > >>> @@ -2879,6 +2879,18 @@ enum rte_flow_action_type { > >>> * @see struct rte_flow_action_ethdev > >>> */ > >>> RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_REPRESENTED_PORT, > >>> + > >>> + /** > >>> + * Send packets to the kernel, without going to userspace at all. > >>> + * The packets will be received by the kernel driver sharing > >>> + * the same device as the DPDK port on which this action is > >>> + * configured. This action is mostly suits bifurcated driver > >>> + * model. > >>> + * This is an ingress non-transfer action only. > >> > >> May be we should not limit the definition to ingress only? > >> It could be useful on egress as a way to reroute packet > >> back to kernel. > >> > > > > Interesting, but there are no Kernel queues on egress that can receive > packets (by definition of egress) > > do you mean that this will also do loopback from the egress back to the > ingress of the same port and then > > send to kernel? > > if so, I think we need a new action "loop_back" > > Yes, I meant intercept packet on egress and send to kernel. > But we still need loopback+send_to_kernel. Loopback itself > cannot send to kernel. Moreover it should be two rules: > loopback on egress plus send-to-kernel on ingress. Does > it really worse it? I'm not sure. Yes, it sounds a bit > better from arch point of view, but I'm still unsure. > I'd allow send-to-kernel on egress. Up to you. >
It looks more correct with loop_back on the egress and send-to-kernel on egress I suggest to keep the current design, and if we see that we can merge those to commands, we will change it > > > >> > >>> + * > >>> + * No associated configuration structure. > >>> + */ > >>> + RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SEND_TO_KERNEL, > >>> }; > >>> > >>> /** > >
