[PATCH v2 02/24] net/nfp: add the structures and functions for flow offload
Ferruh Yigit
ferruh.yigit at amd.com
Wed Oct 19 12:48:22 CEST 2022
On 10/19/2022 3:50 AM, Chaoyong He wrote:
>> On 10/10/2022 7:08 AM, Chaoyong He wrote:
>>> Add the structures and functions to process mask table, flow table,
>>> and flow stats id, which are used in the rte_flow offload logics.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chaoyong He <chaoyong.he at corigine.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund at corigine.com>
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> +__rte_unused static int
>>> +nfp_flow_table_delete(struct nfp_flow_priv *priv,
>>> + struct rte_flow *nfp_flow) {
>>> + int ret;
>>> + char *hash_data;
>>> + uint32_t hash_key;
>>> +
>>> + hash_data = (char *)(nfp_flow->payload.unmasked_data);
>>> + hash_key = rte_jhash(hash_data, nfp_flow->length,
>>> + priv->hash_seed);
>>
>> It can be an option to store hash information in 'struct rte_flow', instead of
>> keep calculating it.
>>
>
> Okay, I will revise like this in the next version patch, thanks.
>
>> <...>
>>
>>> + /* flow stats */
>>> + rte_spinlock_init(&priv->stats_lock);
>>> + stats_size = (ctx_count & NFP_FL_STAT_ID_STAT) |
>>> + ((ctx_split - 1) & NFP_FL_STAT_ID_MU_NUM);
>>> + PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "ctx_count:%0lx, ctx_split:%0lx, stats_size:%0lx
>> ",
>>> + ctx_count, ctx_split, stats_size);
>>> + priv->stats = rte_zmalloc("nfp_flow_stats",
>>> + stats_size * sizeof(struct nfp_fl_stats), 0);
>>
>> Is this allocates 'stats' for max possible flow rule count? Isn't this a too big
>> number to allocate in advance?
>
> For now, the 'stats_size' for our card is 500,000, and sizeof(structure nfp_fl_stats) is 16,
> so the size of memory need alloc here is about 8MB. Maybe it's not a very big memory?
>
agree, 8MB doesn't look much.
> And we also calculate an index use these two macros(in function nfp_stats_id_alloc()),
> and then send it to firmware, and the firmware will send the stats with this index to PMD.
> If we alloc a small memory at start and then enlarge it at some point, we can't make sure
> the index we calculated is unique anymore, and the stats will confusion, which is not good.
>
ack
More information about the dev
mailing list