On 12/10/2019 8:52 AM, Sathya Perla wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 6:53 PM Eli Britstein <el...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> ...
>> +static int
>> +parse_clone_actions(struct netdev *netdev,
>> +                    struct flow_actions *actions,
>> +                    const struct nlattr *clone_actions,
>> +                    const size_t clone_actions_len,
>> +                    struct offload_info *info)
>> +{
>> +    const struct nlattr *ca;
>> +    unsigned int cleft;
>> +
>> +    NL_ATTR_FOR_EACH_UNSAFE (ca, cleft, clone_actions, clone_actions_len) {
>> +        int clone_type = nl_attr_type(ca);
>> +
>> +        if (clone_type == OVS_ACTION_ATTR_TUNNEL_PUSH) {
>> +            const struct ovs_action_push_tnl *tnl_push = nl_attr_get(ca);
>> +            struct rte_flow_action_raw_encap *raw_encap =
>> +                xzalloc(sizeof *raw_encap);
>> +
>> +            raw_encap->data = (uint8_t *)tnl_push->header;
>> +            raw_encap->preserve = NULL;
>> +            raw_encap->size = tnl_push->header_len;
>> +
>> +            add_flow_action(actions, RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_RAW_ENCAP,
>> +                            raw_encap);
> Hi, converting OVS_TUNNLE_PUSH into RTE_RAW_ENCAP loses the 'tnl_type'
> information provided by OVS. RAW_ENCAP provides the tunnel header just
> as a blob of bits which may not be ideal for NIC HW to offload.
>
> How about using tnl_push->tnl_type field to parse the header and
> compose specific tunnel encap actions like RTE_VXLAN_ENCAP,
> RTE_NVGRE_ENCAP etc.
> This would be also be more inline with how it's done with TC-offload.

I see your point. However, struct ovs_action_push_tnl has the "header" 
field just as a raw binary buffer, and not detailed like in TC. 
"tnl_type" has a comment /* For logging. */. It is indeed used for 
logging, as in lib/odp-util.c, in function format_odp_tnl_push_header.

using VXLAN_ENCAP instead of RAW_ENCAP will make the push less generic, 
as I will have to parse the header to build the vxlan_encap fields, just 
so they can re-build as a raw header in the PMD level, so I don't see 
the offload benefit of it.

Another point is that this way it will support any header, not just 
VXLAN (as an example).

>
> thanks!
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to