> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 6:22 PM > To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam > <or...@nvidia.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <ma...@nvidia.com>; Raslan Darawsheh > <rasl...@nvidia.com>; andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru; > ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru; ferruh.yi...@amd.com > Subject: Re: [RFC] ethdev: sharing indirect actions between ports > > 18/01/2023 16:17, Ori Kam: > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > 28/12/2022 17:54, Viacheslav Ovsiienko: > > > > The RTE Flow API implements the concept of shared objects, known > > > > as indirect actions (RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_INDIRECT). > > > > An application can create the indirect action of desired type and > > > > configuration with rte_flow_action_handle_create call and then > > > > specify the obtained action handle in multiple flows. > > > > > > > > The initial concept supposes the action handle has strict > > > > attachment to the port it was created on and to be used > > > > exclusively in the flows being installed on the port. > > > > > > > > Nowadays the multipath network topologies are quite common, > > > > packets belonging to the same connection might arrive and be sent > > > > over multiple ports, and there is the raising demand to handle > > > > these "spread" connections. To fulfil this demand it is proposed > > > > to extend indirect action sharing across the multiple ports. This > > > > kind of sharing would be extremely useful for the meters and > > > > counters, allowing to manage the single connection over the > > > > multiple ports. > > > > > > > > This cross-port object sharing is hard to implement in generic way > > > > merely with software on the upper layers, but can be provided by > > > > the driver over the single hardware instance, where multiple > > > > ports reside on the same physical NIC and share the same hardware > > > > context. > > > > > > > > To allow this action sharing application should specify the "host > > > > port" during flow configuring to claim the intention to share the > > > > indirect actions. All indirect actions reside within "host port" > > > > context and can be shared in flows being installed > > > > > > I don't like the word "host" because it may refer to the host CPU. > > > Also if I understand well, the application must choose one port > > > between all ports of the NIC and keep using the same. > > > I guess we don't want to create a NIC id. > > > So I would suggest to rename to nic_ref_port or something like that. > > > > > > > I think that host is the correct word since this port hosts all > > resources for other ports. (this is also why the host is used in case > > of CPU 😊) > > I don't think it is correct to use bad wording due to the fact that > > some one else also uses this word. > > in rte_flow we never talk about host CPU so I don't think this is confusing. > > The confusion is that we can think of a port on the host.
In my humble opinion, "_port_id" suffix explicitly specifies what field is and does not leave too much space for confusion. "root_port_id"? "base_port_id"? "container_port_id" ? "mgmnt_port_id" ? Looks worse as for me and does not reflect the exact meaning. As Ori mentioned this is DPDK port ID that embraces all the shared actions. It plays a host role for them. With best regards, Slava > >
