[dpdk-dev] [RFC v6] regexdev: introduce regexdev subsystem

[Ori Kam]

Hi Xiang,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wang Xiang <xiang.w.wang at intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 3:20 AM
> To: Ori Kam <orika at mellanox.com>
> Cc: jerinj at marvell.com; dev at dpdk.org; pbhagavatula at marvell.com; Shahaf
> Shuler <shahafs at mellanox.com>; hemant.agrawal at nxp.com; Opher Reviv
> <opher at mellanox.com>; Alex Rosenbaum <alexr at mellanox.com>;
> dovrat at marvell.com; pkapoor at marvell.com; nipun.gupta at nxp.com;
> bruce.richardson at intel.com; yang.a.hong at intel.com; harry.chang at intel.com;
> gu.jian1 at zte.com.cn; shanjiangh at chinatelecom.cn;
> zhangy.yun at chinatelecom.cn; lixingfu at huachentel.com; wushuai at inspur.com;
> yuyingxia at yxlink.com; fanchenggang at sunyainfo.com;
> davidfgao at tencent.com; liuzhong1 at chinaunicom.cn;
> zhaoyong11 at huawei.com; oc at yunify.com; jim at netgate.com;
> hongjun.ni at intel.com; j.bromhead at titan-ic.com; deri at ntop.org;
> fc at napatech.com; arthur.su at lionic.com; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [RFC v6] regexdev: introduce regexdev subsystem
> 
> Hi Ori,
> 
> Sorry for the late response as I am occupied by other works.
> Two comments below to make the definitions compatible to Hyperscan.
> 
> Thanks,
> Xiang
> 
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:32:33AM +0000, Ori Kam wrote:
> > +#define RTE_REGEX_PCRE_RULE_MATCH_ALL_F (1ULL << 13)
> > +/**< This flag marks that the results for the pattern that is being compiled
> > + * should include all possible matches.
> > + * @see struct rte_regex_dev_info::rule_flags, struct
> rte_regex_rule::rule_flags
> > + */
> > +
> Can we change this flag to RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_MATCH_ALL since Hyperscan
> only supports
> match all mode and users don't have to specify this flag per rule?
>

Sure, we can replace the RTE_REGEX_PCRE_RULE_MATCH_ALL_F with 
RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_MATCH_ALL, and add RTE_REGEX_DEV_CAPA_SUPP_MATCH_ALL

 
> > + */
> > +__rte_experimental
> > +int
> > +rte_regex_dev_info_get(uint8_t dev_id, struct rte_regex_dev_info
> *dev_info);
> > +
> > +/* Enumerates RegEx device configuration flags */
> > +#define RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_CROSS_BUFFER_SCAN_F (1ULL << 0)
> > +/**< Cross buffer scan refers to the ability to be able to detect
> > + * matches that occur across buffer boundaries, where the buffers are
> related
> > + * to each other in some way. Enable this flag when to scan payload size
> > + * greater than struct rte_regex_dev_info::max_payload_size and/or
> > + * matches can present across scan buffer boundaries.
> > + *
> > + * @see struct rte_regex_dev_info::max_payload_size
> > + * @see struct rte_regex_dev_config::dev_cfg_flags,
> rte_regex_dev_configure()
> > + * @see RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_SOJ_F
> > + * @see RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_EOJ_F
> > + * @see RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_TOJ_F
> > + */
> > +
> Can we add another flag
> RTE_REGEX_DEV_CFG_CROSS_BUFFER_SCAN_FULL_F? In this case,
> we only return full match for cross buffer scan without any partial result and
> without returning response flags such as RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_*.

I think that it is good in any case to return a flag if the detection was based on 
more than one buffer.
So I don't really see the advantage of adding such a flag.
As far as I understand in your case if the match started in previous buffer and ended 
in the current buffer then you will return also the flag of RTE_REGEX_OPS_RSP_PMI_TOJ_F
For my general knowledge, in your system if we have the following regex: ABC
In the first buffer we have xxxA size 4 and the second buffer is BCxx
If I understand correctly for first buffer you will return no match found.
For the second buffer you will return found and end offset will be equal to  2
Am I correct?
Or you are going to return end offset 6 because it started from the previous buffer? 


Best,
Ori