On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 03:04:05AM +0000, Darrell Ball wrote:
> [Sugesh] Yes, you are right.
> >
> > > If there is a
> > > functionality issue to configure the MARK action properly, it has to
> > > be fixed in DPDK than doing a workaround in OVS.
> >
> > Again, can't agree more on this. But the truth/fact is that it's not an
> easy task
> > to fix DPDK. For Mellanox, I don't know exactly how many parts need to
> be
> > fixed (something like DPDK PMD, libibvers, kernel, etc). For others, it
> might
> > just be a hardware limitation.
> >
> > It's even harder (if not impossible) to fix most (if not all) DPDK pmds
> has rte
> > flow support.
> >
> > Even if we could do that, it may take years to finish that. At least, I
> see no
> > related tasks from DPDK v17.11.
> [Sugesh] Ok. IMO making changes in DPDK is cleaner and avoid lot of extra
> work in OVS
>
> [Darrell] The queue action workaround (for Intel and Mellanox nics) has been
> discussed
> extensively in the first version of the patchset and the last 2 dpdk public
> meetings.
> Nobody likes it.
> There are some other mitigating options discussed already.
>
> I am not sure it is feasible to wait for the underlying support to come,
> assuming it does.
> However, some requests for enhancements could be made in parallel.
Agreed, I think that's the best we could get so far.
--yliu
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
