Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:49:07AM CET, simon.hor...@netronome.com wrote: >Hi Jiri, > >On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:22:37PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> From: Arkadi Sharshevsky <arka...@mellanox.com> >> >> The pipeline debug is used to export the pipeline abstractions >> for the main objects - tables, headers and entries. The only support for >> set is for changing the counter parameter on specific table. >> >> The basic structures: >> >> Header - can represent a real protocol header information or internal >> metadata. Generic protocol headers like IPv4 can be shared >> between drivers. Each driver can add local headers. >> >> Field - part of a header. Can represent protocol field or specific >> ASIC metadata field. Hardware special metadata fields can >> be mapped to different resources, for example switch ASIC >> ports can have internal number which from the systems >> point of view is mapped to netdeivce ifindex. >> >> Hfield - Specific combination of header:field. This object is used >> to represent the table behavior in terms of match/action. >> >> Hfield_val - Represents value of specific Hfield. >> >> Table - represents a hardware block which can be described with >> match/action behavior. The match/action can be done on the >> packets data or on the internal metadata that it gathered >> along the packets traversal throw the pipeline which is vendor >> specific and should be exported in order to provide >> understanding of ASICs behavior. >> >> Entry - represents single record in a specific table. The entry is >> identified by specific combination of Hfield_vals for match >> /action. >> >> Prior to accessing the tables/entries the drivers provide the header/ >> field data base which is used by driver to user-space. The data base >> is split between the shared headers and unique headers. > >Thanks for posting this. In general I think it looks quite promising. > >After a first pass over the code I have the following >specific comments: > >> >> Signed-off-by: Arkadi Sharshevsky <arka...@mellanox.com> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> >> --- >> include/net/devlink.h | 224 ++++++++++++- >> include/uapi/linux/devlink.h | 50 ++- >> net/core/devlink.c | 747 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 1019 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/net/devlink.h b/include/net/devlink.h > >... > >> +/** >> + * struct devlink_dpipe_entry - table entry object >> + * @index: index of the entry in the table >> + * @matches: tuple match values >> + * @matches_count: count of matches tuples >> + * @actions: tuple actions values >> + * @actions_count: count of actions values >> + * @counter: value of counter >> + * @counter_valid: Specify if value is valid from hardware >> + */ >> +struct devlink_dpipe_entry { >> + unsigned int index; > >I'm not sure what I understand what index is but I assume that it is a >unique identifier for the flow within the table. From the point of view
It is an index of the entry within the table, yes. >of having enough indexes for all entries in the table an unsigned int seems >adequate. But I see use-cases that have significantly wider identifiers. > >I'm wondering what your thoughts are on supporting wider identifiers. We can make this u64, no problem. >Perhaps they belong in the match? > >> + struct devlink_dpipe_hfield_val *matches; >> + unsigned int matches_count; >> + struct devlink_dpipe_hfield_val *actions; >> + unsigned int actions_count; >> + u64 counter; > >I'm unclear on what counter is. Is it the number of times the action entry >has been used (hit)? If so I think some provision for richer per-hit Yes. >counters for entries would be useful. At least number of hits and number of >bytes. But perhaps it would be useful to allow hardware to describe its >per-entry counters? Yeah, we were thinking about having this toggle per-entry. The thing is, you should be able to control per-entry over standard API. For example, for TCAM entry, you should use TC toggle to control counter on/off. This table-wide toggle is useful for debugging purposes of entries that are not exposed over standard API. Do you see a need to toggle this per-entry? Thanks for the review! > >> + bool counter_valid; >> +}; > >...