On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:53:05AM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:15 PM
> > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com>
> > Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/11] net/mlx5: support L3 VXLAN flow
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:21:26AM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:56 PM
> > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com>
> > > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/11] net/mlx5: support L3 VXLAN flow
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:20:50AM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 11:09 PM
> > > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/11] net/mlx5: support L3 VXLAN flow
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 02:43:30PM +0000, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:49 PM
> > > > > > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com>
> > > > > > > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/11] net/mlx5: support L3 VXLAN
> > > > > > > > flow
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:14:28PM +0800, Xueming Li wrote:
> > > > > > > > > This patch support L3 VXLAN, no inner L2 header comparing
> > > > > > > > > to standard VXLAN protocol. L3 VXLAN using specific
> > > > > > > > > overlay UDP destination port to discriminate against
> > > > > > > > > standard VXLAN, FW has to be configured to support
> > > > > > > > > it:
> > > > > > > > > sudo mlxconfig -d <device> -y s IP_OVER_VXLAN_EN=1
> > > > > > > > > sudo mlxconfig -d <device> -y s
> > > > > > > > > IP_OVER_VXLAN_PORT=<port>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xueming Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 4 +++-
> > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> > > > > > > > > b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c index 771d5f14d..d7a921dff
> > > > > > > > > 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -413,7 +413,9 @@ static const struct mlx5_flow_items
> > > > > > > > > mlx5_flow_items[] = {
> > > > > > > > > .dst_sz = sizeof(struct ibv_flow_spec_tunnel),
> > > > > > > > > },
> > > > > > > > > [RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VXLAN] = {
> > > > > > > > > - .items = ITEMS(RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_ETH),
> > > > > > > > > + .items = ITEMS(RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_ETH,
> > > > > > > > > + RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV4, /* For
> > > > > > > > > L3 VXLAN. */
> > > > > > > > > + RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6), /* For
> > > > > > > > > L3 VXLAN. */
> > > > > > > > > .actions = valid_actions,
> > > > > > > > > .mask = &(const struct rte_flow_item_vxlan){
> > > > > > > > > .vni = "\xff\xff\xff",
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > 2.13.3
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Such support must be under device parameter has it depends
> > > > > > > > on the configuration of the firmware. If the firmware is
> > > > > > > > not correctly configured the PMD must refuse
> > > > > > such rule.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Nélio Laranjeiro
> > > > > > > > 6WIND
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you suggesting Verbs parameter? I'm afraid we can't have
> > > > > > > it in short time, need new patch in later release when Verbs
> > > > > > > ready.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take a look at [1], this is what I mean.
> > > > >
> > > > > Enabling a new device parameter can't make L3 VXLAN packet get
> > > > > received if fw configuration not set.
> > > >
> > > > So you expect than the user will enable a feature without reading the
> > > > PMD documentation?
> > > > If it is the case, the answer it pretty simple, it is the same as
> > > > above, read the PMD
> > documentation.
> > > >
> > > > > On the other hand, if fw continuation enabled and device parameter
> > > > > not set, packet could be received but failed to create rule.
> > > >
> > > > Again a user using a NIC should read the documentation.
> > >
> > > If a user read the document, fw should be configured correctly to enable
> > > this feature.
> >
> > And a user which does not read this document must not be able to create
> > rules the NIC cannot handle
> > because the firmware is not configured.
> >
> > > > > I'm afraid that a device parameter will introduce complexity of
> > > > > using this feature w/o real benefits.
> > > >
> > > > Add this missing device parameter and update accordingly the
> > > > documentation, or wait for Verbs to add the missing query feature.
> > > >
> > > > If the firmware it not configured this rule must be refused, as
> > > > there is no way in the PMD to know if the firmware is configured, it
> > > > must rely on a device
> > parameter.
> > >
> > > Let's keep the design simple, users know exactly what they are doing
> > > and should not expecting such flow working by reading document.
> >
> > This is exactly the opposite, users never read documentation even today
> > I've already spotted a new
> > user to such documentation [1].
>
> "So you expect than the user will enable a feature without reading the PMD
> documentation?
> If it is the case, the answer it pretty simple, it is the same as above,
> read the PMD documentation.
> Again a user using a NIC should read the documentation."
>
> >
> > For this same reason a functionality not enabled by default in the firmware
> > must not be used by the
> > PMD. No device parameter no feature.
>
> Unlike other functionality, this feature related to supporting a new tunnel
> type, w/o fw configuration,
> L3 VXLAN packet certainly be treated as normal packet, it doesn't hurt. How
> do you think?
flow create 0 ingress eth / ipv4 / end action queue index 3 end
but the packet ends in queue 0, will it hurt?
Any rule *accepted* by the PMD *must* follow the user request, otherwise
it is a bug.
Add the device parameter and the according documentation.
Regards,
--
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND
