Mlnx5 Patches supporting rte-flow Vlan push/pop actions were submitted today. Moti
> -----Original Message----- > From: users <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Adrien Mazarguil > Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:13 PM > To: Hideyuki Yamashita <[email protected]> > Cc: Ye Xiaolong <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Why flow can not be created? > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 03:06:19PM +0900, Hideyuki Yamashita wrote: > > Helllo Experts, > > I think most of them are on vacation :) > > > Q1. Are there any NICs which supports entag/detag VLAN? > > I searched source DPDK source code with keyword "OF_POP_VLAN" or > "OF_POP_VLAN" > > and found some codes within mlx5_flow_tcf.c and cxgbe_flow.c. > > Indeed only those two seem to implement that. However depending on > what you're trying to achieve, there could be a workaround as many drivers > provide support for VLAN entag/detag outside rte_flow. > > For Rx, you can dedicate queues to perform VLAN stripping through > rte_eth_dev_set_vlan_strip_on_queue(), and use rte_flow to redirect > traffic of interest to these queues after matching specific VLANs and other > properties for instance. > > If you don't care about specific VLANs or queues, you can request VLAN > stripping globally using ETH_VLAN_STRIP_OFFLOAD with > rte_eth_dev_set_vlan_offload(), then rely on mbuf->ol_flags & > PKT_RX_VLAN to retrieve it from mbuf->vlan_tci. > > On the Tx side you simply have to request mbuf->ol_flags | PKT_TX_VLAN > while doing Tx. As for Rx, make sure DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_INSERT is > among the Tx offloads requested during setup (rte_eth_conf- > >txmode.offloads). > > > Q2. Are there any plans in DPDK community to update document about NIC > > to update support of rte_flow? > > I have heard the situation about document form Adrien, and to be > > honest I felt it is very hard to take try and error with testpmd for every > > NIC. > > This was discussed in the past, however so far no action was taken. > > I think we cannot summarize all supported combinations for each NIC while > covering their specific quirks efficiently. For instance, two NICs may > support a > given pattern item, but not necessarily at the same position in the pattern. > Likewise for pattern item fields, they may not support the same masks. > > The most sensible approach is perhaps to provide a list of popular flow rules > tagged with the NICs supporting them. > > Anyway since it's not a huge priority at the moment, you should start a > discussion on that topic on the [email protected] mailing list. Without noise, > nothing will happen :) As usual contributions are always welcome! > > -- > Adrien Mazarguil > 6WIND
