02/03/2021 10:22, Ivan Malov: > Hi Gregory, Eli, > > On 16/10/2020 15:51, Gregory Etelson wrote: > > Applications wishing to offload tunneled traffic are required to use > > the rte_flow primitives, such as group, meta, mark, tag, and others to > > model their high-level objects. The hardware model design for > > As far as I understand, the model is an abstraction of sorts, and the > quoted lines provide examples of primitives which applications would > have to use if the model did not exist. > > Looking at the implementation, I don't quite discern any means to let > the application query PMD-specific values of "rte_flow_attr". In > example, the PMD may need to enforce "transfer=1" both for the "tunnel > set" rule and for "tunnel match" one. What if "group" and "priority" > values also need to be implicitly controlled by the PMD for the tunnel > offload rules? > > Have you considered adding an abstraction for "rte_flow_attr" in terms > of this model? > > > The first VXLAN packet that arrives matches the rule in group 0 and > > jumps to group 3. In group 3 the packet will miss since there is no > > This example considers jumping from group 0 to group 3. First of all, > it's unclear whether this model intentionally lets the application > choose group values freely (see my question above) or simply lacks an > interface to let the application use values enforced by the PMD (if > any). Secondly, given the fact that existing description of > "rte_flow_attr" does not shed any light on how groups are ordered by > default, when no JUMPs are configured (it only explains how priority > levels are ordered within the given group but not how groups are > ordered), it's unclear whether the model intentionally permits the > application to jump between arbitrary groups (in example, from 0 to 3) > and not necessarily between, say, 0 to 1. More to that, it's unclear > whether the model lets the application jump from, say, group 0 to the > very same group, 0 ("recirculation") or not. Or is the "recirculation" > is in fact the main scenario in the model? Could you please elaborate on > the model's expectations of groups? > > Thank you.
Given the questions, I think the discussion should be concluded (when done) with a patch updating the API description. Thanks for the questions and clarifications to come :)