On 9/21/17, 1:54 AM, "Yuanhan Liu" <[email protected]> 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" <[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
