[ovs-dev] [PATCH 0/7 RFC] OVS-DPDK flow offload with rte_flow

Yuanhan Liu yliu at fridaylinux.org
Thu Aug 31 10:16:32 UTC 2017


On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 07:39:35PM +0000, Darrell Ball wrote:
>     >     >         Note that it's disabled by default, which can be enabled by:
>     >     >         
>     >     >             $ ovs-vsctl set Open_vSwitch . other_config:hw-offload=true
>     >     > 
>     >     > Maybe per in-port configuration would alleviate the issue to a certain degree.
>     >     
>     >     Yes, it could be done. I choose it for following reasons:
>     >     
>     >     - the option is already there, used by tc offloads.
>     >     - it also simplifies the (first) patchset a bit, IMO.
>     > 
>     > Of course, I understand.
>     >     
>     >     However, I'm okay with making it per port. What's your suggestion for
>     >     this? Making "hw-offload" be port, or introducing another one? If so,
>     >     what's your suggestion on the naming?
>     >     
>     > I am not suggesting to drop the global configuration
>     > Mainly we ‘consider’ additional per interface configuration because of the restriction with
>     > queue action we discuss. This reduces the scope of the queue remapping from what RSS would yield
>     > with HWOL.
>     > I would expect that when such configuration is done (if it were done), that
>     > typically multiple ports would be configured, since traffic flows bi-directionally at least.
>     > 
>     > If we were to do this, one of the possibilities would be something like:
>     > ovs-vsctl set Interface dpdk0 other_config:hw-offload=true
>     
>     What's the scope between the global one and this one then? We simply
>     ignore the globle one for OVS-DPDK?
> 
> [Darrell]
> If we were to have such an option (and it is a pretty big ‘if’), then more
> specific scope (i.e. interface scope here) would eclipse global scope I think.
> Maybe initially, we try to keep it as simple as possible,

Like the one I have already done, re-use "hw-offload" option? :)
This is the simplest I could think of.

	--yliu

> but I could see some other use cases
> for interface level config., like HW resource contention for multiport NICs ?
> 
>     >     Thanks for the review. BTW, would you please add me in 'to' or 'cc'
>     >     list while replying to me?  Otherwise, it's easy to get missed: too
>     >     many emails :/
>     > 
>     > of course
>     
>     Thank you!
>     
>     	--yliu
>     
> 


More information about the dev mailing list