[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 6/6] [net-next]net: i40e: Enable cloud filters in i40e via tc/flower classifier

[Nambiar, Amritha]

On 8/2/2017 5:02 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 17-08-01 10:13 PM, Nambiar, Amritha wrote:
>>
>> On 8/1/2017 3:56 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>>> On 17-07-31 08:38 PM, Amritha Nambiar wrote:
>>>> This patch enables tc-flower based hardware offloads. tc/flower
>>>> filter provided by the kernel is configured as driver specific
>>>> cloud filter. The patch implements functions and admin queue
>>>> commands needed to support cloud filters in the driver and
>>>> adds cloud filters to configure these tc-flower filters.
>>>>
>>>> The only action supported is to redirect packets to a traffic class
>>>> on the same device.
>>>>
>>>> # tc qdisc add dev eth0 ingress
>>>> # ethtool -K eth0 hw-tc-offload on
>>>>
>>>> # tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent ffff:\
>>>>     prio 1 flower dst_mac 3c:fd:fe:a0:d6:70 skip_sw indev eth0\
>>>>     action mirred ingress redirect dev eth0 tc 0
>>>>
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity - did you need to say "indev eth0" there?
>>
>> It looks like I don't need to specify "indev eth0". I will need to look
>> up how this part is offloaded and probably validate in the driver when
>> this is specified.
>>
>>> Also: Is it possible to add an skbmark? Example something like
>>> these that directs two flows to the same queue but different
>>> skb marks:
>>>
>>> # tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent ffff: \
>>>     prio 2 flower dst_ip 192.168.3.5/32 \
>>>     ip_proto udp dst_port 2a skip_sw \
>>>     action skbedit mark 11 \
>>>     action mirred ingress redirect dev eth0 tcqueue 1
>>>
>>> # tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent ffff: \
>>>       prio 1 flower dst_mac 3c:fd:fe:a0:d6:70 skip_sw \
>>>       action skbedit mark 12 \
>>>       action mirred ingress redirect dev eth0 tcqueue 1
>>>
>>
>> It is possible to support the skbedit mark action for the first rule
>> here (L3 and L4) which I can take up in a subsequent patch, but this
>> cannot be supported on our device for L2 based match in the second rule.
>>
> 
> Ok, thanks. So the issue is one of hardware limitation?
> 

Right. Our hardware does not have this support now.

> cheers,
> jamal
>