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?
--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" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Regards
> _Sugesh
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Darrell Ball [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 6:46 PM
> > To: Chandran, Sugesh <[email protected]>; Yuanhan Liu
> > <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Finn Christensen <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 8/8] netdev-dpdk: set FDIR config
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/14/17, 10:36 AM, "Chandran, Sugesh" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > _Sugesh
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:19 AM
> > > To: Darrell Ball <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Finn Christensen <[email protected]>; Chandran, Sugesh
> > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > > 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, "[email protected] on behalf
> of
> > > Finn Christensen" <[email protected] on behalf of
> > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:ovs-dev-
> > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Yuanhan Liu
> > > > Sent: 11. september 2017 09:55
> > > > To: Chandran, Sugesh <[email protected]>
> > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > 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: [email protected] [mailto:ovs-dev-
> > > > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Yuanhan Liu
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 10:23 AM
> > > > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > > > Subject: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 8/8] netdev-dpdk: set FDIR
> config
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Finn Christensen <[email protected]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> >
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
