From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Bing Zhao <bingz@mellanox.com>
Cc: orika@mellanox.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com,
marko.kovacevic@intel.com, thomas@monjalon.net,
ferruh.yigit@intel.com, arybchenko@solarflare.com,
akhil.goyal@nxp.com, dev@dpdk.org, wenzhuo.lu@intel.com,
beilei.xing@intel.com, bernard.iremonger@intel.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] rte_flow: add eCPRI key fields to flow API
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:31:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200710143123.GE5869@platinum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1594370723-343354-2-git-send-email-bingz@mellanox.com>
Hi Bing,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 04:45:22PM +0800, Bing Zhao wrote:
> Add a new item "rte_flow_item_ecpri" in order to match eCRPI header.
>
> eCPRI is a packet based protocol used in the fronthaul interface of
> 5G networks. Header format definition could be found in the
> specification via the link below:
> https://www.gigalight.com/downloads/standards/ecpri-specification.pdf
>
> eCPRI message can be over Ethernet layer (.1Q supported also) or over
> UDP layer. Message header formats are the same in these two variants.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <bingz@mellanox.com>
> Acked-by: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>
> ---
> doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 8 ++
> doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_08.rst | 5 +
> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c | 1 +
> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 31 ++++++
> lib/librte_net/Makefile | 1 +
> lib/librte_net/meson.build | 3 +-
> lib/librte_net/rte_ecpri.h | 182 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/librte_net/rte_ether.h | 1 +
> 8 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 lib/librte_net/rte_ecpri.h
>
> diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> index d5dd18c..669d519 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> @@ -1362,6 +1362,14 @@ Matches a PFCP Header.
> - ``seid``: session endpoint identifier.
> - Default ``mask`` matches s_field and seid.
>
> +Item: ``ECPRI``
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +
> +Matches a eCPRI header.
> +
> +- ``hdr``: eCPRI header definition (``rte_ecpri.h``).
> +- Default ``mask`` matches message type of common header only.
> +
> Actions
> ~~~~~~~
>
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_08.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_08.rst
> index 988474c..19feb68 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_08.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_08.rst
> @@ -184,6 +184,11 @@ New Features
> which are used to access packet data in a safe manner. Currently JIT support
> for these instructions is implemented for x86 only.
>
> +* **Added eCPRI protocol support in rte_flow.**
> +
> + The ``ECPRI`` item have been added to support eCPRI packet offloading for
> + 5G network.
> +
> * **Added flow performance test application.**
>
> Added new application to test ``rte_flow`` performance, including:
> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c
> index 1685be5..f8fdd68 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c
> @@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ struct rte_flow_desc_data {
> MK_FLOW_ITEM(HIGIG2, sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_higig2_hdr)),
> MK_FLOW_ITEM(L2TPV3OIP, sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_l2tpv3oip)),
> MK_FLOW_ITEM(PFCP, sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_pfcp)),
> + MK_FLOW_ITEM(ECPRI, sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_ecpri)),
> };
>
> /** Generate flow_action[] entry. */
> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> index b0e4199..8a90226 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> #include <rte_byteorder.h>
> #include <rte_esp.h>
> #include <rte_higig.h>
> +#include <rte_ecpri.h>
> #include <rte_mbuf.h>
> #include <rte_mbuf_dyn.h>
>
> @@ -527,6 +528,15 @@ enum rte_flow_item_type {
> */
> RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_PFCP,
>
> + /**
> + * Matches eCPRI Header.
> + *
> + * Configure flow for eCPRI over ETH or UDP packets.
> + *
> + * See struct rte_flow_item_ecpri.
> + */
> + RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_ECPRI,
> +
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -1547,6 +1557,27 @@ struct rte_flow_item_pfcp {
> #endif
>
> /**
> + * @warning
> + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior notice
> + *
> + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_ECPRI
> + *
> + * Match eCPRI Header
> + */
> +struct rte_flow_item_ecpri {
> + struct rte_ecpri_msg_hdr hdr;
> +};
> +
> +/** Default mask for RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_ECPRI. */
> +#ifndef __cplusplus
> +static const struct rte_flow_item_ecpri rte_flow_item_ecpri_mask = {
> + .hdr = {
> + .dw0 = 0x0,
> + },
> +};
> +#endif
> +
> +/**
> * Matching pattern item definition.
> *
> * A pattern is formed by stacking items starting from the lowest protocol
> diff --git a/lib/librte_net/Makefile b/lib/librte_net/Makefile
> index aa1d6fe..9830e77 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_net/Makefile
> +++ b/lib/librte_net/Makefile
> @@ -20,5 +20,6 @@ SYMLINK-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NET)-include += rte_sctp.h rte_icmp.h rte_arp.h
> SYMLINK-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NET)-include += rte_ether.h rte_gre.h rte_net.h
> SYMLINK-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NET)-include += rte_net_crc.h rte_mpls.h rte_higig.h
> SYMLINK-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NET)-include += rte_gtp.h rte_vxlan.h
> +SYMLINK-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NET)-include += rte_ecpri.h
>
> include $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.lib.mk
> diff --git a/lib/librte_net/meson.build b/lib/librte_net/meson.build
> index f799349..24ed825 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_net/meson.build
> +++ b/lib/librte_net/meson.build
> @@ -15,7 +15,8 @@ headers = files('rte_ip.h',
> 'rte_net.h',
> 'rte_net_crc.h',
> 'rte_mpls.h',
> - 'rte_higig.h')
> + 'rte_higig.h',
> + 'rte_ecpri.h')
>
> sources = files('rte_arp.c', 'rte_ether.c', 'rte_net.c', 'rte_net_crc.c')
> deps += ['mbuf']
> diff --git a/lib/librte_net/rte_ecpri.h b/lib/librte_net/rte_ecpri.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..60fb4f7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/librte_net/rte_ecpri.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> + * Copyright 2020 Mellanox Technologies, Ltd
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _RTE_ECPRI_H_
> +#define _RTE_ECPRI_H_
> +
> +#include <stdint.h>
> +#include <rte_byteorder.h>
> +
> +#ifdef __cplusplus
> +extern "C" {
> +#endif
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI Protocol Revision 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.0: 0001b
> + * Other values are reserved for future
> + */
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_REV_UP_TO_20 1
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI message types in specifications
> + * IWF* types will only be supported from rev.2
> + * 12-63: Reserved for future revision
> + * 64-255: Vendor Specific
> + */
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_IQ_DATA 0
Here the doxygen comment applies to RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_IQ_DATA.
I think it should either be a standard comment (no doxygen), or
something more complex should be done, like grouping:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30803156/group-level-documentation-for-preprocessor-defines-in-doxygen
(I didn't try)
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_BIT_SEQ 1
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_RTC_CTRL 2
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_GEN_DATA 3
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_RM_ACC 4
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_DLY_MSR 5
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_RMT_RST 6
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_EVT_IND 7
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_IWF_UP 8
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_IWF_OPT 9
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_IWF_MAP 10
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_MSG_TYPE_IWF_DCTRL 11
> +
> +/**
> + * Event Type of Message Type #7: Event Indication
> + * 0x00: Fault(s) Indication
> + * 0x01: Fault(s) Indication Acknowledge
> + * 0x02: Notification(s) Indication
> + * 0x03: Synchronization Request
> + * 0x04: Synchronization Acknowledge
> + * 0x05: Synchronization End Indication
> + * 0x06...0xFF: Reserved
> + */
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_EVT_IND_FAULT_IND 0
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_EVT_IND_FAULT_ACK 1
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_EVT_IND_NTFY_IND 2
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_EVT_IND_SYNC_REQ 3
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_EVT_IND_SYNC_ACK 4
> +#define RTE_ECPRI_EVT_IND_SYNC_END 5
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI Common Header
> + */
> +RTE_STD_C11
> +struct rte_ecpri_common_hdr {
> +#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> + uint32_t size:16; /**< Payload Size */
> + uint32_t type:8; /**< Message Type */
> + uint32_t c:1; /**< Concatenation Indicator */
> + uint32_t res:3; /**< Reserved */
> + uint32_t revision:4; /**< Protocol Revision */
> +#elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> + uint32_t revision:4; /**< Protocol Revision */
> + uint32_t res:3; /**< Reserved */
> + uint32_t c:1; /**< Concatenation Indicator */
> + uint32_t type:8; /**< Message Type */
> + uint32_t size:16; /**< Payload Size */
> +#endif
> +} __rte_packed;
Does it really need to be packed? Why next types do not need it?
It looks only those which have bitfields are.
I wonder if the 'dw0' could be in this definition instead of in
struct rte_ecpri_msg_hdr?
Something like this:
struct rte_ecpri_common_hdr {
union {
uint32_t u32;
struct {
...
};
};
};
I see 2 advantages:
- someone that only uses the common_hdr struct can use the .u32
in its software
- when using it in messages, it looks clearer to me:
msg.common_hdr.u32 = value;
instead of:
msg.dw0 = value;
What do you think?
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI Message Header of Type #0: IQ Data
> + */
> +struct rte_ecpri_msg_iq_data {
> + rte_be16_t pc_id; /**< Physical channel ID */
> + rte_be16_t seq_id; /**< Sequence ID */
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI Message Header of Type #1: Bit Sequence
> + */
> +struct rte_ecpri_msg_bit_seq {
> + rte_be16_t pc_id; /**< Physical channel ID */
> + rte_be16_t seq_id; /**< Sequence ID */
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI Message Header of Type #2: Real-Time Control Data
> + */
> +struct rte_ecpri_msg_rtc_ctrl {
> + rte_be16_t rtc_id; /**< Real-Time Control Data ID */
> + rte_be16_t seq_id; /**< Sequence ID */
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI Message Header of Type #3: Generic Data Transfer
> + */
> +struct rte_ecpri_msg_gen_data {
> + rte_be32_t pc_id; /**< Physical channel ID */
> + rte_be32_t seq_id; /**< Sequence ID */
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI Message Header of Type #4: Remote Memory Access
> + */
> +RTE_STD_C11
> +struct rte_ecpri_msg_rm_access {
> +#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> + uint32_t ele_id:16; /**< Element ID */
> + uint32_t rr:4; /**< Req/Resp */
> + uint32_t rw:4; /**< Read/Write */
> + uint32_t rma_id:8; /**< Remote Memory Access ID */
> +#elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> + uint32_t rma_id:8; /**< Remote Memory Access ID */
> + uint32_t rw:4; /**< Read/Write */
> + uint32_t rr:4; /**< Req/Resp */
> + uint32_t ele_id:16; /**< Element ID */
> +#endif
> + rte_be16_t addr_m; /**< 48-bits address (16 MSB) */
> + rte_be32_t addr_l; /**< 48-bits address (32 LSB) */
> + rte_be16_t length; /**< number of bytes */
> +} __rte_packed;
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI Message Header of Type #5: One-Way Delay Measurement
> + */
> +struct rte_ecpri_msg_delay_measure {
> + uint8_t msr_id; /**< Measurement ID */
> + uint8_t act_type; /**< Action Type */
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI Message Header of Type #6: Remote Reset
> + */
> +struct rte_ecpri_msg_remote_reset {
> + rte_be16_t rst_id; /**< Reset ID */
> + uint8_t rst_op; /**< Reset Code Op */
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI Message Header of Type #7: Event Indication
> + */
> +struct rte_ecpri_msg_event_ind {
> + uint8_t evt_id; /**< Event ID */
> + uint8_t evt_type; /**< Event Type */
> + uint8_t seq; /**< Sequence Number */
> + uint8_t number; /**< Number of Faults/Notif */
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * eCPRI Message Header Format: Common Header + Message Types
> + */
> +RTE_STD_C11
> +struct rte_ecpri_msg_hdr {
> + union {
> + struct rte_ecpri_common_hdr common;
> + uint32_t dw0;
> + };
> + union {
> + struct rte_ecpri_msg_iq_data type0;
> + struct rte_ecpri_msg_bit_seq type1;
> + struct rte_ecpri_msg_rtc_ctrl type2;
> + struct rte_ecpri_msg_bit_seq type3;
> + struct rte_ecpri_msg_rm_access type4;
> + struct rte_ecpri_msg_delay_measure type5;
> + struct rte_ecpri_msg_remote_reset type6;
> + struct rte_ecpri_msg_event_ind type7;
> + uint32_t dummy[3];
> + };
> +};
What is the point in having this struct?
From a software point of view, I think it is a bit risky, because
its size is the size of the largest message. This is probably what
you want in your case, but when a software will rx or tx such
packet, I think they shouldn't use this one. My understanding is
that you only need this structure for the mask in rte_flow.
Also, I'm not sure to understand the purpose of dummy[3], even after reading
your answer to Akhil's question.
> +
> +#ifdef __cplusplus
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +#endif /* _RTE_ECPRI_H_ */
> diff --git a/lib/librte_net/rte_ether.h b/lib/librte_net/rte_ether.h
> index 0ae4e75..184a3f9 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_net/rte_ether.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_net/rte_ether.h
> @@ -304,6 +304,7 @@ struct rte_vlan_hdr {
> #define RTE_ETHER_TYPE_LLDP 0x88CC /**< LLDP Protocol. */
> #define RTE_ETHER_TYPE_MPLS 0x8847 /**< MPLS ethertype. */
> #define RTE_ETHER_TYPE_MPLSM 0x8848 /**< MPLS multicast ethertype. */
> +#define RTE_ETHER_TYPE_ECPRI 0xAEFE /**< eCPRI ethertype (.1Q supported). */
>
> /**
> * Extract VLAN tag information into mbuf
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-10 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-28 16:20 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] rte_flow: add eCPRI key fields to flow API Bing Zhao
2020-07-02 6:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Bing Zhao
2020-07-02 8:06 ` Ori Kam
2020-07-02 12:53 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] rte_flow: introduce eCPRI item for rte_flow Bing Zhao
2020-07-02 12:53 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] rte_flow: add eCPRI key fields to flow API Bing Zhao
2020-07-05 11:34 ` Ori Kam
2020-07-02 12:53 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] app/testpmd: add eCPRI in flow creation patterns Bing Zhao
2020-07-05 11:36 ` Ori Kam
2020-07-07 15:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/2] rte_flow: introduce eCPRI item for rte_flow Bing Zhao
2020-07-07 15:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] rte_flow: add eCPRI key fields to flow API Bing Zhao
2020-07-08 18:49 ` Akhil Goyal
2020-07-09 3:58 ` Bing Zhao
2020-07-07 15:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] app/testpmd: add eCPRI in flow creation patterns Bing Zhao
2020-07-10 8:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/2] rte_flow: introduce eCPRI item for rte_flow Bing Zhao
2020-07-10 8:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] rte_flow: add eCPRI key fields to flow API Bing Zhao
2020-07-10 14:31 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2020-07-11 4:25 ` Bing Zhao
2020-07-12 13:17 ` Olivier Matz
2020-07-12 14:28 ` Bing Zhao
2020-07-12 14:43 ` Olivier Matz
2020-07-10 8:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] app/testpmd: add eCPRI in flow creation patterns Bing Zhao
2020-07-12 13:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/2] rte_flow: introduce eCPRI item for rte_flow Bing Zhao
2020-07-12 13:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] rte_flow: add eCPRI key fields to flow API Bing Zhao
2020-07-12 14:45 ` Olivier Matz
2020-07-12 14:50 ` Bing Zhao
2020-07-13 0:50 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-07-13 8:30 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-07-12 13:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] app/testpmd: add eCPRI in flow creation patterns Bing Zhao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200710143123.GE5869@platinum \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
--cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=beilei.xing@intel.com \
--cc=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
--cc=bingz@mellanox.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
--cc=marko.kovacevic@intel.com \
--cc=orika@mellanox.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=wenzhuo.lu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.