Re: Per-queue XDP programs, thoughts

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2019-04-16 11:36, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 18:33, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 13:59:03 +0200 Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

As you probably can derive from the amount of time this is taking, I'm
not really satisfied with the design of per-queue XDP program. (That,
plus I'm a terribly slow hacker... ;-)) I'll try to expand my thinking
in this mail!

Beware, it's kind of a long post, and it's all over the place.

Cc'ing all the XDP-maintainers (and netdev).

There are a number of ways of setting up flows in the kernel, e.g.

* Connecting/accepting a TCP socket (in-band)
* Using tc-flower (out-of-band)
* ethtool (out-of-band)
* ...

The first acts on sockets, the second on netdevs. Then there's ethtool
to configure RSS, and the RSS-on-steriods rxhash/ntuple that can steer
to queues. Most users care about sockets and netdevices. Queues is
more of an implementation detail of Rx or for QoS on the Tx side.

Let me first acknowledge that the current Linux tools to administrator
HW filters is lacking (well sucks).  We know the hardware is capable,
as DPDK have an full API for this called rte_flow[1]. If nothing else
you/we can use the DPDK API to create a program to configure the
hardware, examples here[2]

  [1] https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html
  [2] https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/rte_flow.html

XDP is something that we can attach to a netdevice. Again, very
natural from a user perspective. As for XDP sockets, the current
mechanism is that we attach to an existing netdevice queue. Ideally
what we'd like is to *remove* the queue concept. A better approach
would be creating the socket and set it up -- but not binding it to a
queue. Instead just binding it to a netdevice (or crazier just
creating a socket without a netdevice).

Let me just remind everybody that the AF_XDP performance gains comes
from binding the resource, which allow for lock-free semantics, as
explained here[3].

[3] https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tutorial/tree/master/advanced03-AF_XDP#where-does-af_xdp-performance-come-from


Yes, but leaving the "binding to queue" to the kernel wouldn't really
change much. It would mostly be that the *user* doesn't need to care
about hardware details. My concern is about "what is a good
abstraction".

Can we really guarantee that we will make the right decision from inside
the kernel, though?


Uhm, what do you mean here?



The socket is an endpoint, where I'd like data to end up (or get sent
from). If the kernel can attach the socket to a hardware queue,
there's zerocopy if not, copy-mode. Dito for Tx.

Well XDP programs per RXQ is just a building block to achieve this.

As Van Jacobson explain[4], sockets or applications "register" a
"transport signature", and gets back a "channel".   In our case, the
netdev-global XDP program is our way to register/program these transport
signatures and redirect (e.g. into the AF_XDP socket).
This requires some work in software to parse and match transport
signatures to sockets.  The XDP programs per RXQ is a way to get
hardware to perform this filtering for us.

  [4] http://www.lemis.com/grog/Documentation/vj/lca06vj.pdf


There are a lot of things that are missing to build what you're
describing above. Yes, we need a better way to program the HW from
Linux userland (old topic); What I fail to see is how per-queue XDP is
a way to get hardware to perform filtering. Could you give a
longer/complete example (obviously with non-existing features :-)), so
I get a better view what you're aiming for?



Does a user (control plane) want/need to care about queues? Just
create a flow to a socket (out-of-band or inband) or to a netdevice
(out-of-band).

A userspace "control-plane" program, could hide the setup and use what
the system/hardware can provide of optimizations.  VJ[4] e.g. suggest
that the "listen" socket first register the transport signature (with
the driver) on "accept()".   If the HW supports DPDK-rte_flow API we
can register a 5-tuple (or create TC-HW rules) and load our
"transport-signature" XDP prog on the queue number we choose.  If not,
when our netdev-global XDP prog need a hash-table with 5-tuple and do
5-tuple parsing.

Creating netdevices via HW filter into queues is an interesting idea.
DPDK have an example here[5], on how to per flow (via ethtool filter
setup even!) send packets to queues, that endup in SRIOV devices.

  [5] https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/flow_bifurcation.html


Do we envison any other uses for per-queue XDP other than AF_XDP? If
not, it would make *more* sense to attach the XDP program to the
socket (e.g. if the endpoint would like to use kernel data structures
via XDP).

As demonstrated in [5] you can use (ethtool) hardware filters to
redirect packets into VFs (Virtual Functions).

I also want us to extend XDP to allow for redirect from a PF (Physical
Function) into a VF (Virtual Function).  First the netdev-global
XDP-prog need to support this (maybe extend xdp_rxq_info with PF + VF
info).  Next configure HW filter to queue# and load XDP prog on that
queue# that only "redirect" to a single VF.  Now if driver+HW supports
it, it can "eliminate" the per-queue XDP-prog and do everything in HW.


Again, let's try to be more concrete! So, one (non-existing) mechanism
to program filtering to HW queues, and then attaching a per-queue
program to that HW queue, which can in some cases be elided? I'm not
opposing the idea of per-queue, I'm just trying to figure out
*exactly* what we're aiming for.

My concern is, again, mainly that is a queue abstraction something
we'd like to introduce to userland. It's not there (well, no really
:-)) today. And from an AF_XDP userland perspective that's painful.
"Oh, you need to fix your RSS hashing/flow." E.g. if I read what
Jonathan is looking for, it's more of something like what Jiri Pirko
suggested in [1] (slide 9, 10).

Hey, maybe I just need to see the fuller picture. :-) AF_XDP is too
tricky to use from XDP IMO. Per-queue XDP program would *optimize*
AF_XDP, but not solving the filtering. Maybe starting in the
filtering/metadata offload path end of things, and then see what we're
missing.


If we'd like to slice a netdevice into multiple queues. Isn't macvlan
or similar *virtual* netdevices a better path, instead of introducing
yet another abstraction?

XDP redirect a more generic abstraction that allow us to implement
macvlan.  Except macvlan driver is missing ndo_xdp_xmit. Again first I
write this as global-netdev XDP-prog, that does a lookup in a BPF-map.
Next I configure HW filters that match the MAC-addr into a queue# and
attach simpler XDP-prog to queue#, that redirect into macvlan device.


Just for context; I was thinking something like macvlan with
ndo_dfwd_add/del_station functionality. "A virtual interface that is
simply is a view of a physical". A per-queue program would then mean
"create a netdev for that queue".

My immediate reaction is that I kinda like this model from an API PoV;
not sure what it would take to get there, though? When you say
'something like macvlan', you do mean we'd have to add something
completely new, right?


Macvlan with that can be hw-offloaded is there today. XDP support is not in place.

The Mellanox subdev-work [1] (I just started to dig into the details)
looks like this (i.e. slicing a physical device). Personally I really
like this approach, but I need to dig into the details more.


Björn

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/1551418672-12822-1-git-send-email-parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx/

-Toke




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux