On 5/17/2017 5:38 PM, Gaëtan Rivet wrote: > Hi Ferruh, Hi Gaetan,
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:02:50PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 5/17/2017 3:54 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >>> Hi Ferruh, >>> Please see my comments/questions below. >> >> Thanks for review. >> >>> Thanks >>> Konstantin >> >> <...> >> >>> I think it was discussed already, but I still wonder why rte_flow_item >>> can't be used for that approach? >> >> Missed this one: >> >> Gaëtan also had same comment, copy-paste from other mail related to my >> concerns using rte_flow: >> >> " >> rte_flow is to create flow rules in PMD level, but what this library >> aims to collect flow information, independent from if underlying PMD >> implemented rte_flow or not. >> >> So issues with using rte_flow for this use case: >> 1- It may not be implemented for all PMDs (including virtual ones). >> 2- It may conflict with other rte_flow rules created by user. >> 3- It may not gather all information required. (I mean some actions >> here, count like ones are easy but rte_flow may not be so flexible to >> extract different metrics from flows) >> " > > There are two separate elements to using rte_flow in this context I think. > > One is the use of the existing actions, and as you say, this makes the > support of this library dependent on the rte_flow support in PMDs. > > The other is the expression of flows through a shared syntax. Using > flags to propose presets can be simpler, but will probably not be flexible > enough. rte_flow_items are a first-class citizen in DPDK and are > already a data type that can express flows with flexibility. As > mentioned, they are however missing a few elements to fully cover IPFIX > meters, but nothing that cannot be added I think. > > So I was probably not clear enough, but I was thinking about > supporting rte_flow_items in rte_flow_classify as the possible key > applications would use to configure their measurements. This should not > require rte_flow supports from the PMDs they would be using, only > rte_flow_item parsing from the rte_flow_classify library. > > Otherwise, DPDK will probably end up with two competing flow > representations. Additionally, it may be interesting for applications > to bind these data directly to rte_flow actions once the > classification has been analyzed. Thanks for clarification, I see now what you and Konstantin is proposing. And yes it makes sense to use rte_flow to define flows in the library, I will update the RFC. Thanks, ferruh
