On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:55:27AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 17:28:02 +0200 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > Thanks for the explanation. I feel more and more convinced now that
> > > we should have TC_ACT_TRAP_MIRROR and the devlink trap should only
> > > be on/off :S Current model of "if ACT_TRAP consult devlink for trap
> > > configuration" is impossible to model in SW since it doesn't have a
> > > equivalent of devlink traps. Or we need that equivalent..
> >
> > Wait, the current model is not "if ACT_TRAP consult devlink for trap
> > configuration". 'ecn_mark' action is always 'trap' ('mirror' in v2) and
> > can't be changed. Such packets can always be sent to the CPU, but the
> > decision of whether to send them or not is based on the presence of tc
> > filters attached to RED's 'mark' qevent with TC_ACT_TRAP
> > (TC_ACT_TRAP_MIRROR in v2).
>
> I see, missed that, but I think my point conceptually stands, right?
> Part of forwarding behavior was (in v1) only expressed in control
> plane (devlink) not dataplane (tc).
I don't think so? The action was set to 'trap' in both devlink and tc.
>
> > I believe that with the proposed changes in v2 it should be perfectly
> > clear that ECN marked packets are forwarded in hardware and a copy is
> > sent to the CPU.
>
> Yup, sounds good.
Thanks!
