On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:00 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:00:50 -0800 Tom Herbert wrote: > > > I want to emphasize again these patches are about the P4 s/w pipeline > > > that is intended to work seamlessly with hw offload. If you are > > > interested in h/w offload and want to contribute just show up at the > > > meetings - they are open to all. The current offloadable piece is the > > > match-action tables. The P4 specs may change to include parsers in the > > > future or other objects etc (but not sure why we should discuss this > > > in the thread). > > > > Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't P4 want to be compiled to a backend > > target? How does going through TC make this seamless? > > +1 > I should clarify what i meant by "seamless". It means the same control API is used for s/w or h/w. This is a feature of tc, and is not being introduced by P4TC. P4 control only deals with Match-action tables - just as TC does. > My intuition is that for offload the device would be programmed at > start-of-day / probe. By loading the compiled P4 from /lib/firmware. > Then the _device_ tells the kernel what tables and parser graph it's > got. > BTW: I just want to say that these patches are about s/w - not offload. Someone asked about offload so as in normal discussions we steered in that direction. The hardware piece will require additional patchsets which still require discussions. I hope we dont steer off too much, otherwise i can start a new thread just to discuss current view of the h/w. Its not the device telling the kernel what it has. Its the other way around. >From the P4 program you generate the s/w (the ebpf code and other auxillary stuff) and h/w pieces using a compiler. You compile ebpf, etc, then load. The current point of discussion is the hw binary is to be "activated" through the same tc filter that does the s/w. So one could say: tc filter add block 22 ingress protocol all prio 1 p4 pname simple_l3 \ prog type hw filename "simple_l3.o" ... \ action bpf obj $PARSER.o section p4tc/parser \ action bpf obj $PROGNAME.o section p4tc/main And that would through tc driver callbacks signal to the driver to find the binary possibly via /lib/firmware Some of the original discussion was to use devlink for loading the binary - but that went nowhere. Once you have this in place then netlink with tc skip_sw/hw. This is what i meant by "seamless" > Plus, if we're talking about offloads, aren't we getting back into > the same controversies we had when merging OvS (not that I was around). > The "standalone stack to the side" problem. Some of the tables in the > pipeline may be for routing, not ACLs. Should they be fed from the > routing stack? How is that integration going to work? The parsing > graph feels a bit like global device configuration, not a piece of > functionality that should sit under sub-sub-system in the corner. The current (maybe i should say initial) thought is the P4 program does not touch the existing kernel infra such as fdb etc. Of course we can model the kernel datapath using P4 but you wont be using "ip route add..." or "bridge fdb...". In the future, P4 extern could be used to model existing infra and we should be able to use the same tooling. That is a discussion that comes on/off (i think it did in the last meeting). cheers, jamal
