Use shared egress ACL table for PFCWD in BRCM DNX platform

[ysmanman]

Today PFCWD uses separate egress ACL tables, one table for each traffic class. This may result in ACL resource overflow when other features that also need egress ACL table is enabled at the same time, e.g., MACSEC. ( See sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#17839 for details).

The fix is to use shared egress ACL table for PFCWD in BRCM DNX platform.

What I did

Why I did it

How I verified it

Details if related

[ysmanman]

Add @kenneth-arista @arlakshm @vmittal-msft for viz.

[arlakshm]

Please add UT.

[arlakshm]

Sai changes still now complete. These are sonic changes for this functionality change. PR to be merged after the SAI changes are integrated.

[arlakshm]

@saksarav-nokia

[vmittal-msft]

Changes looks fine.

1. Can you please share all the test run results to verify this functionality? Manual, sonic-mgmt, ixia tests etc
2. Please share syslog message change due to this. current/new both.
3. Please test with/without mac sec enabled ports.
4. Also, please post results from pizzabox.
5. Are these swss changes complete or expecting more after applying second patch from BRCM ?
6. Please make sure to verify pfcwd drop counters to make sure they are still reporting drops.

Thanks
Vineet

[vmittal-msft]

Also, please add test cases to cover changes.

[ysmanman]

The test added in this PR depends on sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#19108

[ysmanman]

Changes looks fine.

1. Can you please share all the test run results to verify this functionality? Manual, sonic-mgmt, ixia tests etc
2. Please share syslog message change due to this. current/new both.
3. Please test with/without mac sec enabled ports.
4. Also, please post results from pizzabox.
5. Are these swss changes complete or expecting more after applying second patch from BRCM ?
6. Please make sure to verify pfcwd drop counters to make sure they are still reporting drops.

Thanks Vineet

Changes looks fine.

1. Can you please share all the test run results to verify this functionality? Manual, sonic-mgmt, ixia tests etc

We completed the testing with ixia, and shared egress acl worked fine without seeing any issue.

2. Please share syslog message change due to this. current/new both.

The change adds the following new syslog when binging eress ACL table to switch:

May 22 17:34:39.194760 cmp329-6 NOTICE swss0#orchagent: :- bindEgrAclTableToSwitch: Bind egress acl table EgressTable_PfcWdAclHandler_Drop to switch

3. Please test with/without mac sec enabled ports.

Yes, we tested PFCWD alone and also PFCWD + MACsec.

4. Also, please post results from pizzabox.

We will provide the result when the testing is done.

5. Are these swss changes complete or expecting more after applying second patch from BRCM ?

The swss change is complete.

6. Please make sure to verify pfcwd drop counters to make sure they are still reporting drops.

Yes, the drop counters worked fine.

Thanks Vineet

[ysmanman]

Also, please add test cases to cover changes.

Also, please add test cases to cover changes.

Hi @vmittal-msft, test was added.

[ysmanman]

Hi @vmittal-msft , the test in this PR depends on sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#19108.

[vmittal-msft]

@ysmanman please check comments and re-base.

[ysmanman]

@kperumalbfn , kindly review. @ysmanman , do you've plans to fix coverage?

Hi @prsunny , I chatted with @vmittal-msft yesterday about the code coverage issue. The missing code coverage was due to existing code not providing any code coverage for PfcWdAclHandler. So this is a test gap in current code. My PR unfortunately hit the test gap in coverage check. We need to fix the gap here. @vmittal-msft was suggesting to merge the PR first since the PR is required by 202405 and 202205 release, and then fixed coverage separately.

[prsunny]

@kperumalbfn , kindly review. @ysmanman , do you've plans to fix coverage?

Hi @prsunny , I chatted with @vmittal-msft yesterday about the code coverage issue. The missing code coverage was due to existing code not providing any code coverage for PfcWdAclHandler. So this is a test gap in current code. My PR unfortunately hit the test gap in coverage check. We need to fix the gap here. @vmittal-msft was suggesting to merge the PR first since the PR is required by 202405 and 202205 release, and then fixed coverage separately.

ok, we can take that separately. waiting for reviewers to sign-off

[kperumalbfn]

LGTM

[vmittal-msft]

@ysmanman please re-base.

[mssonicbld]

Cherry-pick PR to 202405: #3250

[bingwang-ms]

@ysmanman The new test test_pfcwd_shared_egress_acl_table.py is consistently failing on 202405 branch. Can you please help check?

        """Run `polling_function` periodically using the specified `polling_config`.
    
        Args:
            polling_function: The function being polled. The function cannot take any arguments and
                must return a status which indicates if the function was succesful or not, as well as
                some return value.
            polling_config: The parameters to use to poll the polling function.
            failure_message: The message to print if the call times out. This will only take effect
                if the PollingConfig is set to strict.
    
        Returns:
            If the polling function succeeds, then this method will return True and the output of the
            polling function.
    
            If it does not succeed within the provided timeout, it will return False and whatever the
            output of the polling function was on the final attempt.
        """
        for _ in range(polling_config.iterations()):
            status, result = polling_function()
    
            if status:
                return (True, result)
    
            time.sleep(polling_config.polling_interval)
    
        if polling_config.strict:
            message = failure_message or f"Operation timed out after {polling_config.timeout} seconds with result {result}"
>           assert False, message
E           AssertionError: Operation timed out after 600 seconds with result None