Hi Eli,
Thanks for the patch, very interesting work.
I'm trying to understand the patch. some questions below:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:09 AM Eli Britstein <el...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
> A miss in virtual port offloads means the flow with tnl_pop was
> offloaded, but not the following one. Recover the state and continue
> with SW processing.
Why do we have a miss in virtual port offloads? Isn't we only
offloading to physical port or uplink?
at patch 25/25, you mentioned
"For virtual port (as "vxlan"), HW rules match tunnel properties
(outer header) and inner packet fields, and with a decap action. The
rules are placed on all uplinks as they are the potential for the origin
of the traffic."
>
> Co-authored-by: Eli Britstein <el...@mellanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ophir Munk <ophi...@mellanox.com>
> Reviewed-by: Roni Bar Yanai <ron...@mellanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Eli Britstein <el...@mellanox.com>
> ---
> lib/netdev-offload-dpdk.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/netdev-offload-dpdk.c b/lib/netdev-offload-dpdk.c
> index fc890b915..c4d77c115 100644
> --- a/lib/netdev-offload-dpdk.c
> +++ b/lib/netdev-offload-dpdk.c
> @@ -385,7 +385,6 @@ put_flow_miss_ctx_id(uint32_t flow_ctx_id)
> put_context_data_by_id(&flow_miss_ctx_md, flow_ctx_id);
> }
>
> -OVS_UNUSED
> static int
> find_flow_miss_ctx(int flow_ctx_id, struct flow_miss_ctx *ctx)
> {
> @@ -1769,10 +1768,43 @@ out:
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int
> +netdev_offload_dpdk_hw_miss_packet_recover(struct netdev *netdev,
> + uint32_t flow_miss_ctx_id,
> + struct dp_packet *packet)
> +{
> + struct flow_miss_ctx flow_miss_ctx;
> + struct netdev *vport_netdev;
> +
> + if (find_flow_miss_ctx(flow_miss_ctx_id, &flow_miss_ctx)) {
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + if (flow_miss_ctx.vport != ODPP_NONE) {
> + vport_netdev = netdev_ports_get(flow_miss_ctx.vport,
> + netdev->dpif_type);
> + if (vport_netdev) {
> + pkt_metadata_init(&packet->md, flow_miss_ctx.vport);
> + if (vport_netdev->netdev_class->pop_header) {
> + vport_netdev->netdev_class->pop_header(packet);
IIUC, we need to pop header here because now we translate
tnl_pop to mark + jump.
So the outer tunnel header does not get pop/unset in hardware,
so at SW side before upcall to OVS, we need to pop here, right?
William
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
