[ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 8/8] netdev-dpdk: set FDIR config
Darrell Ball
dball at vmware.com
Thu Sep 21 09:00:10 UTC 2017
On 9/21/17, 1:54 AM, "Yuanhan Liu" <yliu at fridaylinux.org> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 08:04:45AM +0000, Darrell Ball wrote:
> Hi Yuanhan/Finn
>
> I think we may need to caveat the Fortville nics due to the global mask
> limitation;
Sorry, I didn't follow you. Like how? Or what specifically I could/should
do?
I meant to say that we would not need this patch 8, since it can only allow exact match anyways.
This would not fit well with the other nics support and the overall design.
We would also add some comments to the documentation describing the non-support for Fortville
for the feature.
Darrell
--yliu
> we also discussed this in the dpdk meeting yesterday.
>
> What do you think ?
>
> Thanks Darrell
>
> On 9/20/17, 6:47 AM, "Chandran, Sugesh" <sugesh.chandran at intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Regards
> _Sugesh
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Darrell Ball [mailto:dball at vmware.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 6:46 PM
> > To: Chandran, Sugesh <sugesh.chandran at intel.com>; Yuanhan Liu
> > <yliu at fridaylinux.org>
> > Cc: Finn Christensen <fc at napatech.com>; dev at openvswitch.org
> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 8/8] netdev-dpdk: set FDIR config
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/14/17, 10:36 AM, "Chandran, Sugesh" <sugesh.chandran at intel.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > _Sugesh
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yliu at fridaylinux.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:19 AM
> > > To: Darrell Ball <dball at vmware.com>
> > > Cc: Finn Christensen <fc at napatech.com>; Chandran, Sugesh
> > > <sugesh.chandran at intel.com>; dev at openvswitch.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 8/8] netdev-dpdk: set FDIR config
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 01:57:22AM +0000, Darrell Ball wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/11/17, 1:14 AM, "ovs-dev-bounces at openvswitch.org on behalf of
> > > Finn Christensen" <ovs-dev-bounces at openvswitch.org on behalf of
> > > fc at napatech.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ovs-dev-bounces at openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-dev-
> > > bounces at openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Yuanhan Liu
> > > > Sent: 11. september 2017 09:55
> > > > To: Chandran, Sugesh <sugesh.chandran at intel.com>
> > > > Cc: dev at openvswitch.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 8/8] netdev-dpdk: set FDIR config
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:42:57AM +0000, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > _Sugesh
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: ovs-dev-bounces at openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-dev-
> > > > > > bounces at openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Yuanhan Liu
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 10:23 AM
> > > > > > To: dev at openvswitch.org
> > > > > > Subject: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 8/8] netdev-dpdk: set FDIR config
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Finn Christensen <fc at napatech.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Intel i40e PMD driver requires the fdir mode set to
> > > > > > RTE_FDIR_MODE_PERFECT, otherwise, the flow creation would be
> > > failed.
> > > > > [Sugesh] this means it doesn't honor the flow masks which passed
> > onto
> > > rte_flow_*?
> > > >
> > > > IIRC, that's what I found after divig the code. It's an issue reported/fixed
> > > by Finn. I also don't have the nic for testing.
> > > >
> > > > [Finn] Yes, this was needed to make our test setup using an XL710 work,
> > > with the rte_flow implementation.
> > > > It's a while ago so I don't exactly remember how we ended up with this
> > > solution. However, we are definitely not
> > > > Intel XL710 experts, so there might be other ways to achieve the
> > > rte_flow functionality.
> > > > This issue, and problem raised about the overall change in configuration
> > > impact on NICs using this setting (Napatech
> > > > does not use it), I think should be reviewed/verified by NIC vendors
> > > using it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Darrell] We need to confirm the masking in the flow (but from what I see,
> > > it is ignored as Sugesh mentioned),
> > > > which would be a significant difference.
> > > > I guess we need input from Intel flow director folks to be sure and
> > > check if this can be done otherwise.
> > > > What about the 82599 as another example ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I will leave this to Intel folks.
> > [Sugesh] From the 82599 datasheet
> >
> > =======
> > The 82599 support two types of filtering modes (static setting by the
> > FDIRCTRL.PerfectMatch
> > bit):
> > * Perfect match filters - The hardware checks a match between the masked
> > fields of
> > the received packets and the programmed filters. Masked fields should be
> > programmed as zeros in the filter context. The 82599 support up to 8 K - 2
> > perfect
> > match filters.
> > * Signature filters - The hardware checks a match between a hash-based
> > signature of
> > the masked fields of the received packet. The 82599 supports up to 32 K - 2
> > signature filters.
> > * Notation - The Perfect Match fields and Signature field are denoted as Flow
> > ID fields.
> > The 82599 supports masking / range for the previously described fields. These
> > masks are
> > defined globally for all filters in the FDIR...M register.
> > =======
> > So my understanding is even if it can support masking, the mask is global and
> > not per flow.
> >
> > [Darrell] That was my interpretation as well; same across flow director usages.
> >
> > Again I will confirm this and provide more details.
> >
> > [Darrell] One question is – ‘is there some way to enable per flow masking’ with
> > this config ?
> [Sugesh] No for Intel NIC. It’s a silicon limitation on Fortville. The mask is a global config.
> > A second request is – ‘is there another option than
> > RTE_FDIR_MODE_PERFECT
> > or similar’ to use to achieve the result ?
> [Sugesh] For Fortville this is the only option that can use for per flow.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --yliu
> >
>
>
>
More information about the dev
mailing list