> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> > Sent: Friday, 20 January 2023 14:23 > > On 1/18/23 19:37, Slava Ovsiienko wrote: > > > > > >> -----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. > > Maybe 'owner_port_id' or 'rsrc_port_id' ? > Rsrc? Owner_port looks O.K but I'm not sure what is the issue with the original suggestion.
Best, Ori
