Hi, Jan To use port action (I see it is in your sample action list) the flow should be applied to the FDB domain, ie "transfer" attribute should be specified:
flow validate 0 ingress transfer... With best regards, Slava > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Viktorin <vikto...@cesnet.cz> > Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 14:21 > To: Asaf Penso <as...@nvidia.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>; Jiawei(Jonny) Wang > <jiaw...@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Duplicating traffic with RTE Flow > > Hello Asaf, > > it is a while we were in touch regarding this topic. Finally, I am again > trying to > get work this feature. I've seen that sampling is already upstreamed which is > great. However, I am not very successful with that. There is nearly no > documentation, just [1], I found no examples, just commit logs... > > I tried: > > > set sample_actions 0 port_id id 1 / end > flow validate 0 ingress pattern > end actions sample ratio 1 index 0 / drop / end > port_flow_complain(): Caught PMD error type 1 (cause unspecified): port id > action is valid in transfer mode only: Operation not supported > flow > validate > 0 ingress transfer pattern end actions sample ratio 1 index 0 / drop / end > port_flow_complain(): Caught PMD error type 1 (cause unspecified): (no > stated reason): Operation not supported > > Using CentOS 7, DPDK 20.11.0, OFED-5.2-1.0.4. > NICs: MT2892 Family [ConnectX-6 Dx] 101d (fw 22.28.1002), MT27800 Family > [ConnectX-5] 1017 (fw 16.27.2008). > > My primary goal is to be able to deliver exactly the same packets both to > DPDK and to the Linux kernel. Doing this at RTE Flow level would be great due > to performance and transparency. > > Jan > > [1] https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html#action-sample > > On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:23:42 +0000 > Asaf Penso <as...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > Hello Jan, > > > > You can have a look in series [1] where we propose to add APIs to > DPDK20.11 for both mirroring and sampling for packets, with additional > actions of the different traffic. > > > > [1] > > http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=12045 > > > > Regards, > > Asaf Penso > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Jan Viktorin > > >Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 3:56 PM > > >To: dev@dpdk.org > > >Subject: [dpdk-dev] Duplicating traffic with RTE Flow > > > > > >Hello all, > > > > > >we are looking for a way to duplicate ingress traffic in hardware. > > > > > >There is an example in [1] suggesting to insert two fate actions into > > >the RTE Flow actions array like: > > > > > > flow create 0 ingress pattern end \ > > > actions queue index 0 / void / queue index 1 / end > > > > > >But our experience is that PMDs reject two fate actions (tried with > > >mlx5). Another similar approach would be to deliver every single > > >packet into two virtual > > >functions: > > > > > > flow create 0 ingress pattern end \ > > > actions vf index 0 / vf index 1 / end > > > > > >Third possibility was to use passthru: > > > > > > flow create 0 ingress pattern end \ > > > actions passthru / vf index 0 / end flow create 0 ingress > > > pattern end \ > > > actions vf index 1 / end > > > > > >Again, tried on mlx5 and it does not support the passthru. > > > > > >Last idea was to use isolate with passthru (to deliver both to DPDK > > >application and to the kernel) but again there was no support on mlx5 for > passthru... > > > > > > flow isolate 0 true > > > flow create 0 ingress pattern end actions passthru / rss end / end > > > > > >Is there any other possibility or PMD+NIC that is known to solve such > issue? > > > > > >Thanks > > >Jan Viktorin > > > > > >[1] > > >https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoc > > >.dpdk > > >.org%2Fguides%2Fprog_guide%2Frte_flow.html%23table-rte-flow-redirect- > > >queue-5- > > > >3&data=02%7C01%7Casafp%40nvidia.com%7C1a46005bec5245e729e70 > 8d > > > >85bd24caf%7C43083d15727340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C63736030 > 60 > > > >73519816&sdata=EOF%2Fz62crvBZK8rwzwKIWxj5cVlfPVnU3FLmcL9X2w0 > %3 > > >D&reserved=0
