[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1291835644.2560.52.camel@bwh-desktop>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:14:04 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Dimitris Michailidis <dm@...lsio.com>
Cc: Vladislav Zolotarov <vladz@...adcom.com>,
Peter Waskiewicz <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: (Lack of) specification for RX n-tuple filtering
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:54 -0800, Dimitris Michailidis wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 18:24 +0200, Vladislav Zolotarov wrote:
> >>>> It's a bit worse than that. Currently one can only append filters, not
> >>>> insert at a given position, as ethtool_rx_ntuple doesn't have an index
> >>>> field. For devices that use TCAMs, where position matters, it's quite an
> >>>> obstacle. It also means one cannot modify an existing filter by specifying
> >>>> a new filter for the same index.
> >>> It looks like drivers for devices that use TCAMs should implement the
> >>> RXNFC interface instead.
> >>>
> >> Ben, from ethtool manpage it sounds like RXNFC option defines the way
> >> the RSS hash should be calculated, while SRXNTUPLE is meant to control
> >> the destination Rx queue for a stream specified by a filter/filters.
> >
> > By 'RXNFC interface' I mean ETHTOOL_{G,S}RXCLS* and not
> > ETHTOOL_{G,S}RXFH which wrongly share (part of) the same structure..
> >
> >> The
> >> semantics for a specification of the steam is also quite different. For
> >> instance, how do u define a rule to drop all packets with source IP
> >> address 192.168.10.200 by means of RXNFC?
> >
> > Something like this, I think:
> >
> > struct ethtool_rxnfc insert_rule = {
> > .cmd = ETHTOOL_SRXCLSRLINS,
> > .flow_type = IP_USER_SPEC,
> > .fs = {
> > .flow_type = IP_USER_SPEC,
> > .h_u.usr_ip4_spec = {
> > .ip4src = inet_aton("192.168.10.200"),
> > .ip_ver = ETH_RX_NFC_IP4
> > },
> > .m_u.usr_ip4_spec = {
> > .ip4dst = 0xffffffff,
> > .l4_4_bytes = 0xffffffff,
> > .tos = 0xff,
> > .proto = 0xff
> > },
> > .ring_cookie = RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC,
> > .location = 0,
> > }
> > };
>
> I think the mask would be 0 for don't care fields and 1 for care, so
>
> .m_u.usr_ip4_spec.ip4src = htonl(0xffffffff)
> .m_u.usr_ip4_spec.ip4dst = htonl(0)
> etc
That is definitely the opposite of what ixgbe and sfc do for
ethtool_ntuple_rx_flow_spec, and I believe it is the opposite of what
niu does for ethtool_rx_flow_spec.
[...]
> >> It's also unclear what is the relation between RXNFC and SRXNTUPLE. The
> >> last in general may override the decision made based on the hash result.
> >> So, it sounds like applying rules of SRXNTUPLE should come before
> >> applying the RSS logic and only if there was no match RSS should be
> >> applied to that frame. Do I get it right?
> >
> > That's right.
>
> It can be more involved than this. Our HW allows a rule to select a
> different part of the RSS table so you get a filter hit and still do RSS
> afterwards if you want. Current ethtool interfaces do not support this,
> basically it would be a different action for either SRXNTUPLE or SRXCLSRLINS.
So does the rule specify an offset added to the output of the RSS hash
and indirection table, or can it also select a different indirection
table? Our current hardware also has a filter flag for the former
behaviour... There are still plenty of bits to spare in 'action' and
'ring_cookie' so perhaps we could define a flag for this?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists