On 9/3/2020 11:11 AM, Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda wrote:
*From:* Ajit Khaparde <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 1, 2020 10:42 PM
*To:* Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda <[email protected]>
*Cc:* Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon
<[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Rasesh Mody <[email protected]>; Shahed Shaikh
<[email protected]>; Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Liron Himi <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev][PATCH v7 1/3] ethdev: add level support for
RSS offload types
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:27 AM Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 7:08 PM
> To: Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thomas Monjalon
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Andrew Rybchenko
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; Rasesh Mody
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Shahed Shaikh
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Nithin Kumar
> Dabilpuram <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Liron Himi
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev][PATCH v7 1/3] ethdev: add level support
for RSS
> offload types
>
> External Email
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 9/1/2020 4:27 AM, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: Kiran Kumar K <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> >
> > This patch reserves 2 bits as input selection to select Inner and
> > outer encapsulation level for RSS computation. It is combined with
> > existing
> > ETH_RSS_* to choose Inner or outer layers.
> > This functionality already exists in rte_flow through level parameter
> > in RSS action configuration rte_flow_action_rss.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kiran Kumar K <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > ---
> > V7 Changes:
> > * Re-worked to keep it in sync with rte_flow_action_rss and support
> > upto
> > 3 levels.
> > * Addressed testpmd review comments.
> >
> > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> > b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h index 70295d7ab..13e49bbd7 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> > @@ -552,6 +552,33 @@ struct rte_eth_rss_conf {
> > #define RTE_ETH_RSS_L3_PRE64 (1ULL << 53)
> > #define RTE_ETH_RSS_L3_PRE96 (1ULL << 52)
> >
> > +/*
> > + * We use the following macros to combine with the above layers to
> > +choose
> > + * inner and outer layers or both for RSS computation.
> > + * bit 50 and 51 are reserved for this.
> > + */
> > +
> > +/** level 0, requests the default behavior. Depending on the packet
> > + * type, it can mean outermost, innermost, anything in between or
even no
> RSS.
> > + * It basically stands for the innermost encapsulation level RSS
> > + * can be performed on according to PMD and device capabilities.
> > + */
> > +#define ETH_RSS_LEVEL_0 (0ULL << 50)
>
> I can see from history how this is involved, but the 'ETH_RSS_LEVEL_0'
naming is
> not really clear what it is, the naming in v6 is more clear.
>
> What about following one:
> 0 -> LEVEL_PMD_DEFAULT
> 1 -> LEVEL_OUTER
> 2 -> LEVEL_INNER
> 3 -> LEVEL_INNER_OUTER
>
> This doesn't exactly match to rte_flow one, but closer than v6 one. This
ends
> with max level 2. And defines a way to say both inner and outer.
This one looks good to me. If everyone is ok with the proposed changes, I
will send V8.
How about following one:
0 -> LEVEL_PMD_DEFAULT
1 -> LEVEL_OUTERMOST
2 -> LEVEL_INNERMOST
This way we can avoid any ambiguity especially if stacked tunnel headersbecome
real.
3 -> LEVEL_INNER_OUTER
But I am not sure if INNER_OUTER has a use case.
Alternatively,
why not just add uint32_t level;
just like in case of rte_flow_action_rss?
It will break ABI but its 20.11.
Thanks
-Ajit
Can I send V8 with this proposal?
0 -> LEVEL_PMD_DEFAULT
1 -> LEVEL_OUTERMOST
2 -> LEVEL_INNERMOST
If anyone want INNER_OUTER, they can specify LEVEL_OUTERMOST| LEVEL_INNERMOST
+1 to INNERMOST & OUTERMOST, and use "LEVEL_OUTERMOST| LEVEL_INNERMOST" for
INNER_OUTER.
But the capability reporting is still problematic.
If @Andrew has no objection, I think it is ok to have a v8 and we can continue
discussion on it.
>
> > +
> > +/** level 1, requests RSS to be performed on the outermost packet
> > + * encapsulation level.
> > + */
> > +#define ETH_RSS_LEVEL_1 (1ULL << 50)
> > +
> > +/** level 2, requests RSS to be performed on the
> > + * specified inner packet encapsulation level, from outermost to
> > + * innermost (lower to higher values).
> > + */
> > +#define ETH_RSS_LEVEL_2 (2ULL << 50)
>
> I can see you are trying to copy rte_flow usage, but this doesn't really
makes
> sense here. Where the value of the level is defined in this case? If not
defined
> how the PMD knows which level to use?
>
> > +#define ETH_RSS_LEVEL_MASK (3ULL << 50)
> > +
> > +#define ETH_RSS_LEVEL(rss_hf) ((rss_hf & ETH_RSS_LEVEL_MASK) >> 50)
> > +
> > /**
> > * For input set change of hash filter, if SRC_ONLY and DST_ONLY of
> > * the same level are used simultaneously, it is the same case as
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
