[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: support age shared action context
Matan Azrad
matan at nvidia.com
Wed Nov 4 14:28:09 CET 2020
From: Ferruh Yigit
> On 11/3/2020 7:33 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > Hi Ferruh
> >
> > Thank you for the fast review.
> > Please see inline
> >
> > From: Ferruh Yigit
> >> On 11/1/2020 5:48 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> >>> When an age action becomes aged-out the rte_flow_get_aged_flows
> >>> should return the action context supplied by the configuration structure.
> >>>
> >>> In case the age action created by the shared action API, the shared
> >>> action context of the Testpmd application was not set.
> >>>
> >>> In addition, the application handler of the contexts returned by the
> >>> rte_flow_get_aged_flows API didn't consider the fact that the action
> >>> could be set by the shared action API and considered it as regular
> >>> flow context.
> >>>
> >>> This caused a crash in Testpmd when the context is parsed.
> >>>
> >>> This patch set context type in the flow and shared action context
> >>> and uses it to parse the aged-out contexts correctly.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <matan at nvidia.com>
> >>> Acked-by: Dekel Peled <dekelp at nvidia.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> app/test-pmd/config.c | 57
> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> ---------
> >>> app/test-pmd/testpmd.h | 7 +++++++
> >>> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c index
> >>> e0203f0..3581f3d 100644
> >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
> >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
> >>> @@ -1665,8 +1665,10 @@ void port_flow_tunnel_create(portid_t
> >>> port_id,
> >> const struct tunnel_ops *ops)
> >>> return NULL;
> >>> }
> >>> if (rte_flow_conv(RTE_FLOW_CONV_OP_RULE, &pf->rule, ret, &rule,
> >>> - error) >= 0)
> >>> + error) >= 0) {
> >>> + pf->ctype = CONTEXT_TYPE_FLOW;
> >>> return pf;
> >>> + }
> >>> free(pf);
> >>> return NULL;
> >>> }
> >>> @@ -1831,6 +1833,7 @@ void port_flow_tunnel_create(portid_t port_id,
> >> const struct tunnel_ops *ops)
> >>> }
> >>> psa->next = *ppsa;
> >>> psa->id = id;
> >>> + psa->ctype = CONTEXT_TYPE_SHARED_ACTION;
> >>> *ppsa = psa;
> >>> *action = psa;
> >>> return 0;
> >>> @@ -1849,6 +1852,12 @@ void port_flow_tunnel_create(portid_t
> >>> port_id,
> >> const struct tunnel_ops *ops)
> >>> ret = action_alloc(port_id, id, &psa);
> >>> if (ret)
> >>> return ret;
> >>> + if (action->type == RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_AGE) {
> >>> + struct rte_flow_action_age *age =
> >>> + (void *)(uintptr_t)(action->conf);
> >>> +
> >>> + age->context = psa;
> >>> + }
> >>
> >> The port flow is using 'update_age_action_context()' function, can
> >> same function be utilized to update age context for shared action too?
> >
> > For updating flow context, the code iterates all actions to find the age action -
> so it worth to call dedicate function.
> > For updating shared action context - it a direct access.
> > So, they have different search method.
> >
>
> Just to reduce the age action related churn in the code, if it can be abstracted
> in to a single function I prefer it, if that doesn't make sense it is OK.
>
> >
> >>
> >> btw, not sure why 'update_age_action_context()' is not static, if you
> >> will touch it can you please make it static function?
> >>
> >> And overall this context setting for the age action is requiring the
> >> special conditions in the flow create path, can you please check if
> >> it can be moved to 'cmdline_flow.c' for age parsing code somehow?
> >>
> >>> /* Poisoning to make sure PMDs update it in case of error. */
> >>> memset(&error, 0x22, sizeof(error));
> >>> psa->action = rte_flow_shared_action_create(port_id, conf,
> >>> action, @@ -2379,7 +2388,10 @@ struct rte_flow_shared_action *
> >>> void **contexts;
> >>> int nb_context, total = 0, idx;
> >>> struct rte_flow_error error;
> >>> - struct port_flow *pf;
> >>> + union {
> >>> + struct port_flow *pf;
> >>> + struct port_shared_action *psa;
> >>> + } ctx;
> >>>
> >>> if (port_id_is_invalid(port_id, ENABLED_WARN) ||
> >>> port_id == (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL) @@ -2397,7 +2409,7 @@
> >>> struct rte_flow_shared_action *
> >>> printf("Cannot allocate contexts for aged flow\n");
> >>> return;
> >>> }
> >>> - printf("ID\tGroup\tPrio\tAttr\n");
> >>> + printf("%-20s\tID\tGroup\tPrio\tAttr\n", "Type");
> >>> nb_context = rte_flow_get_aged_flows(port_id, contexts, total,
> &error);
> >>> if (nb_context != total) {
> >>> printf("Port:%d get aged flows count(%d) !=
> >>> total(%d)\n", @@ -2406,18 +2418,31 @@ struct rte_flow_shared_action *
> >>> return;
> >>> }
> >>> for (idx = 0; idx < nb_context; idx++) {
> >>> - pf = (struct port_flow *)contexts[idx];
> >>> - if (!pf) {
> >>> + ctx.pf = (struct port_flow *)contexts[idx];
> >>> + if (!ctx.pf) {
> >>> printf("Error: get Null context in port %u\n", port_id);
> >>> continue;
> >>> }
> >>> - printf("%" PRIu32 "\t%" PRIu32 "\t%" PRIu32 "\t%c%c%c\t\n",
> >>> - pf->id,
> >>> - pf->rule.attr->group,
> >>> - pf->rule.attr->priority,
> >>> - pf->rule.attr->ingress ? 'i' : '-',
> >>> - pf->rule.attr->egress ? 'e' : '-',
> >>> - pf->rule.attr->transfer ? 't' : '-');
> >>> + switch (ctx.pf->ctype) {
> >>
> >>
> >> At this stage you don't know if the context is 'pf' or 'psa', but you
> >> rely that both structure first element is "enum testpmd_context_type"
> >> and this requirement is completely undocumented.
> >
> > Yes, will add a comment.
> >
> >>
> >> Why don't create a common context and pass that one the the age
> >> action for both 'pf' & 'psa', like
> >>
> >> struct port_flow_age_action_context {
> >> enum testpmd_context_type ctype;
> >> union {
> >> struct port_flow *pf;
> >> struct port_shared_action *psa;
> >> } ctx;
> >> };
> >
> > We considered this option too,
> > It looked us more optimized to not utilize more memory and alloc\free time
> for each age context.
> >
> > One more option we considered:
> >
> > Use age action context pointer as uint32_t\uintptr_t - use 2 bits for type and
> others for pf->id psa->id.
> > What do you think about this?
> >
>
> Will 'id' be enough? I see other information is used, though not sure if it is only
> for print.
>
From the id we can get the pointer(and other information) - this is the same ID as supplied by the command line user to query\destroy an existed flows.
> I will be unexpected to use the pointer for id but it works, can you please add
> enough comment to clarify the usage?
If you mean code comment, yes I will add.
> >
> >> I think this also prevents to corrupt 'pf' and 'psa' just for age action.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> + case CONTEXT_TYPE_FLOW:
> >>> + printf("%-20s\t%" PRIu32 "\t%" PRIu32 "\t%" PRIu32
> >>> + "\t%c%c%c\t\n",
> >>> + "Flow",
> >>> + ctx.pf->id,
> >>> + ctx.pf->rule.attr->group,
> >>> + ctx.pf->rule.attr->priority,
> >>> + ctx.pf->rule.attr->ingress ? 'i' : '-',
> >>> + ctx.pf->rule.attr->egress ? 'e' : '-',
> >>> + ctx.pf->rule.attr->transfer ? 't' : '-');
> >>> + break;
> >>> + case CONTEXT_TYPE_SHARED_ACTION:
> >>> + printf("%-20s\t%" PRIu32 "\n", "Shared action",
> >>> + ctx.psa->id);
> >>> + break;
> >>> + default:
> >>> + printf("Error: invalid context type %u\n", port_id);
> >>> + break;
> >>> + }
> >>> }
> >>> if (destroy) {
> >>> int ret;
> >>> @@ -2426,15 +2451,15 @@ struct rte_flow_shared_action *
> >>> total = 0;
> >>> printf("\n");
> >>> for (idx = 0; idx < nb_context; idx++) {
> >>> - pf = (struct port_flow *)contexts[idx];
> >>> - if (!pf)
> >>> + ctx.pf = (struct port_flow *)contexts[idx];
> >>> + if (!ctx.pf || ctx.pf->ctype !=
> >>> + CONTEXT_TYPE_FLOW)
> >>> continue;
> >>
> >> When the context is 'CONTEXT_TYPE_SHARED_ACTION', who destroys it?
> >
> > Destroy request is optional, I didn't add a support to destroy something here:
> > 1 options here is to save all the flows assigned to the age shared action inside
> the shared action context and destroy all of them + the shared aged action.
> > It can be step 2 later.
> >
>
> OK
>
> >>
> >>> - flow_id = pf->id;
> >>> + flow_id = ctx.pf->id;
> >>> ret = port_flow_destroy(port_id, 1, &flow_id);
> >>> if (!ret)
> >>> total++;
> >>> }
> >>> - printf("%d flows be destroyed\n", total);
> >>> + printf("%d flows destroyed\n", total);
> >>> }
> >>> free(contexts);
> >>> }
> >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h index
> >>> 519d551..92aaa19 100644
> >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h
> >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h
> >>> @@ -143,8 +143,14 @@ struct fwd_stream {
> >>> struct pkt_burst_stats tx_burst_stats;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> +enum testpmd_context_type {
> >>> + CONTEXT_TYPE_FLOW,
> >>> + CONTEXT_TYPE_SHARED_ACTION,
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>
> >> The enum prefix is too generic, 'CONTEXT_TYPE_', what do you think
> >> clarifying what context we are talking about?
> >
> > enum flow_age_action_context_type {
> > FLOW_AGE_ACTION_CTX_FLOW,
> > FLOW_AGE_ACTION_CTX_SHARED_ACTION,
> > }
> >
> > ?
>
> I think better, thanks.
>
> >>
> >>> /** Descriptor for a single flow. */
> >>> struct port_flow {
> >>> + enum testpmd_context_type ctype; /**< Context type. */
> >>> struct port_flow *next; /**< Next flow in list. */
> >>> struct port_flow *tmp; /**< Temporary linking. */
> >>> uint32_t id; /**< Flow rule ID. */ @@ -155,6 +161,7 @@ struct
> >>> port_flow {
> >>>
> >>> /* Descriptor for shared action */
> >>> struct port_shared_action {
> >>> + enum testpmd_context_type ctype; /**< Context type. */
> >>> struct port_shared_action *next; /**< Next flow in list. */
> >>> uint32_t id; /**< Shared action ID. */
> >>> enum rte_flow_action_type type; /**< Action type. */
> >>>
> >
> >
> > What do you think about changing the rte_flow_get_aged_flows API name to
> rte_flow_get_aged_contexts ?
> >
>
> Here context has some data do identify the aged flows, right? If so
> 'rte_flow_get_aged_flows' also reasonable I think.
>
> No strong opinion but the API name as it is looks good to me.
OK, thanks.
More information about the dev
mailing list