From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet Subject: Re: [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classify library Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 18:38:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20170517163848.GQ14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> References: <20170420185448.19162-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170420185448.19162-2-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAF774A@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <64f62140-86d9-22e8-6605-487da657a4f4@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Tahhan, Maryam" To: Ferruh Yigit Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4932E2C2F for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 18:38:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 70so16747384wmq.1 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 09:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <64f62140-86d9-22e8-6605-487da657a4f4@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Ferruh, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:02:50PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >On 5/17/2017 3:54 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >> Hi Ferruh, >> Please see my comments/questions below. > >Thanks for review. > >> Thanks >> Konstantin > ><...> > >> I think it was discussed already, but I still wonder why rte_flow_item can't be used for that approach? > >Missed this one: > >Gaëtan also had same comment, copy-paste from other mail related to my >concerns using rte_flow: > >" >rte_flow is to create flow rules in PMD level, but what this library >aims to collect flow information, independent from if underlying PMD >implemented rte_flow or not. > >So issues with using rte_flow for this use case: >1- It may not be implemented for all PMDs (including virtual ones). >2- It may conflict with other rte_flow rules created by user. >3- It may not gather all information required. (I mean some actions >here, count like ones are easy but rte_flow may not be so flexible to >extract different metrics from flows) >" There are two separate elements to using rte_flow in this context I think. One is the use of the existing actions, and as you say, this makes the support of this library dependent on the rte_flow support in PMDs. The other is the expression of flows through a shared syntax. Using flags to propose presets can be simpler, but will probably not be flexible enough. rte_flow_items are a first-class citizen in DPDK and are already a data type that can express flows with flexibility. As mentioned, they are however missing a few elements to fully cover IPFIX meters, but nothing that cannot be added I think. So I was probably not clear enough, but I was thinking about supporting rte_flow_items in rte_flow_classify as the possible key applications would use to configure their measurements. This should not require rte_flow supports from the PMDs they would be using, only rte_flow_item parsing from the rte_flow_classify library. Otherwise, DPDK will probably end up with two competing flow representations. Additionally, it may be interesting for applications to bind these data directly to rte_flow actions once the classification has been analyzed. -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND