On 9/3/20 4:14 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > 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.
Frankly speaking I'd drop OUTERMOST | INNERMOST for now in requested RSS hash config and defined OUTERMOST | INNERMOST in capabilities as possibility to hash by either INNERMOST or OUTERMOST headers correspondingly. > > 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. See above. Number of recognized tunnel levels could be reported in dev_info, but looks insufficient, since it is interesting which tunnels are supported (may be even on which level). >> >> >> > >> > > + >> > > +/** 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 >> > > >>
