Re: [RFC/PATCH net-next v3 0/8] allow user to offload tc action to net device

[Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 05:33:14PM +0200, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Tue 02 Nov 2021 at 14:51, Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 10:01:28AM +0200, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >> On Sun 31 Oct 2021 at 15:40, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com> wrote:
> >> > On 2021-10-31 05:50, Oz Shlomo wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> On 10/28/2021 2:06 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> >> Actions are also (implicitly) instantiated when filters are created.
> >> >> In the following example the mirred action instance (created by the first
> >> >> filter) is shared by the second filter:
> >> >> tc filter add dev $DEV1 proto ip parent ffff: flower \
> >> >>      ip_proto tcp action mirred egress redirect dev $DEV3
> >> >> tc filter add dev $DEV2 proto ip parent ffff: flower \
> >> >>      ip_proto tcp action mirred index 1
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> > I sure hope this is supported. At least the discussions so far
> >> > are a nod in that direction...
> >> > I know there is hardware that is not capable of achieving this
> >> > (little CPE type devices) but lets not make that the common case.
> >> 
> >> Looks like it isn't supported in this change since
> >> tcf_action_offload_add() is only called by tcf_action_init() when BIND
> >> flag is not set (the flag is always set when called from cls code).
> >> Moreover, I don't think it is good idea to support such use-case because
> >> that would require to increase number of calls to driver offload
> >> infrastructure from 1 per filter to 1+number_of_actions, which would
> >> significantly impact insertion rate.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I feel that I am missing some very obvious point here.
> >
> > But from my perspective the use case described by Oz is supported
> > by existing offload of the flower classifier (since ~4.13 IIRC).
> 
> Mlx5 driver can't support such case without infrastructure change in
> kernel for following reasons:
> 
> - Action index is not provided by flow_action offload infrastructure for
>   most of the actions, so there is no way for driver to determine
>   whether the action is shared.
> 
> - If we extend the infrastructure to always provide tcfa_index (a
>   trivial change), there would be not much use for it because there is
>   no way to properly update shared action counters without
>   infrastructure code similar to what you implemented as part of this
>   series.
> 
> How do you support shared actions created through cls_api in your
> driver, considering described limitations?

Thanks,

I misread the use case described by Oz, but I believe I understand it now.

I agree that the case described is neither currently supported, nor
supported by this patchset (to be honest I for one had not considered it).

So, I think the question is: does upporting this use-case make sense - from
implementation, use-case, and consistency perspectives - in the context of
this patchset?

Am I on the right track?