Sorry - didnt read every detail of this thread so i may
be missing something.
On 2019-10-22 12:54 p.m., John Fastabend wrote:
Toshiaki Makita wrote:
On 2019/10/19 0:22, John Fastabend wrote:
Toshiaki Makita wrote:
This is a PoC for an idea to offload flow, i.e. TC flower and nftables,
to XDP.
I don't know who this "someone" is that wants to use XDP through TC
flower or nftables transparently. TC at least is not known for a
great uapi.
The uapi is netlink. You may be talking about lack of a friendly
application library that abstracts out concepts?
It seems to me that it would be a relatively small project
to write a uapi that ran on top of a canned XDP program to add
flow rules. This could match tc cli if you wanted but why not take
the opportunity to write a UAPI that does flow management well.
Disagreement:
Unfortunately legacy utilities and apps cant just be magically wished
away. There's a lot of value in transparently making them work with
new infrastructure. My usual exaggerated pitch: 1000 books have been
written on this stuff, 100K people have RH certificates which entitle
them to be "experts"; dinasour kernels exist in data centres and
(/giggle) "enteprise". You cant just ignore all that.
Summary: there is value in what Toshiaki is doing.
I am disappointed that given a flexible canvas like XDP, we are still
going after something like flower... if someone was using u32 as the
abstraction it will justify it a lot more in my mind.
Tying it to OVS as well is not doing it justice.
Agreement:
Having said that I dont think that flower/OVS should be the interface
that XDP should be aware of. Neither do i agree that kernel "real
estate" should belong to Oneway(TM) of doing things (we are still stuck
with netfilter planting the columbus flag on all networking hooks).
Let 1000 flowers bloom.
So: couldnt Toshiaki's requirement be met with writting a user space
daemon that trampolines flower to "XDP format" flow transforms? That way
in the future someone could add a u32->XDP format flow definition and we
are not doomed to forever just use flower.
To some extent yes, but not completely. Flow insertion from userspace
triggered by datapath upcall is necessary regardless of whether we use
TC or not.
Right but these are latency involved with OVS architecture not
kernel implementation artifacts. Actually what would be an interesting
metric would be to see latency of a native xdp implementation.
I don't think we should add another implementation to the kernel
that is worse than what we have.
xdp_flow TC ovs kmod
-------- -------- --------
22ms 6ms 0.6ms
TC is already order of magnitude off it seems :(
>
If ovs_kmod is .6ms why am I going to use something that is 6ms or
22ms.
I am speculating having not read Toshiaki's code.
The obvious case for the layering is for policy management.
As you go upwards hw->xdp->tc->userspace->remote control
your policies get richer and the resolved policies pushed down
are more resolved. I am guessing the numbers we see above are
for that first packet which is used as a control packet.
An automonous system like this is of course susceptible to
attacks.
The workaround would be to preload the rules, but even then
you will need to deal with resource constraints. Comparison
would be like hierarchies of cache to RAM: L1/2/3 before RAM.
To illustrate: Very limited fastest L1 (aka NIC offload),
Limited faster L2 (XDP algorithms), L3 being tc and RAM being
the user space resolution.
I expect a native xdp implementation using a hash map to be
inline with ovs kmod if not better.
Hashes are good for datapath use cases but not when you consider
a holistic access where you have to worry about control aspect.
cheers,
jamal
