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

[Darrell Ball]

On 8/31/17, 3:16 AM, "Yuanhan Liu" <yliu at fridaylinux.org> wrote:

    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.

[Darrell]
At the interface scope; the name hw-offload could be reused and documented that
it is only used by dpdk, ‘if’ this route were to be followed.

    
    	--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
    >     
    >