On 11/15/23 14:37, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
On 11/15, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
On 11/13/23 18:02, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
On 11/13, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
On 11/13/23 15:10, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/2/23 23:58, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h b/include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h
index 2ecf79282c26..b0ee7ad19b51 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h
@@ -106,6 +106,41 @@ struct xdp_options {
#define XSK_UNALIGNED_BUF_ADDR_MASK \
((1ULL << XSK_UNALIGNED_BUF_OFFSET_SHIFT) - 1)
+/* Request transmit timestamp. Upon completion, put it into tx_timestamp
+ * field of struct xsk_tx_metadata.
+ */
+#define XDP_TXMD_FLAGS_TIMESTAMP (1 << 0)
+
+/* Request transmit checksum offload. Checksum start position and offset
+ * are communicated via csum_start and csum_offset fields of struct
+ * xsk_tx_metadata.
+ */
+#define XDP_TXMD_FLAGS_CHECKSUM (1 << 1)
+
+/* AF_XDP offloads request. 'request' union member is consumed by the driver
+ * when the packet is being transmitted. 'completion' union member is
+ * filled by the driver when the transmit completion arrives.
+ */
+struct xsk_tx_metadata {
+ union {
+ struct {
+ __u32 flags;
+
+ /* XDP_TXMD_FLAGS_CHECKSUM */
+
+ /* Offset from desc->addr where checksumming should start. */
+ __u16 csum_start;
+ /* Offset from csum_start where checksum should be stored. */
+ __u16 csum_offset;
+ } request;
+
+ struct {
+ /* XDP_TXMD_FLAGS_TIMESTAMP */
+ __u64 tx_timestamp;
+ } completion;
+ };
+};
This looks wrong to me. It looks like member @flags is not avail at
completion time. At completion time, I assume we also want to know if
someone requested to get the timestamp for this packet (else we could
read garbage).
I've moved the parts that are preserved across tx and tx completion
into xsk_tx_metadata_compl.
This is to address Magnus/Maciej feedback where userspace might race
with the kernel.
See: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ZNoJenzKXW5QSR3E@boxer/
Does this mean that every driver have to extend their TX-desc ring with
sizeof(struct xsk_tx_metadata_compl)?
Won't this affect the performance of this V5?
Yes, but it doesn't have to be a descriptor. Might be some internal
driver completion queue (as in the case of mlx5). And definitely does
affect performance :-( (see all the static branches to disable it)
$ pahole -C xsk_tx_metadata_compl
./drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac.ko
struct xsk_tx_metadata_compl {
__u64 * tx_timestamp; /* 0 8 */
/* size: 8, cachelines: 1, members: 1 */
/* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
};
Guess, I must be misunderstanding, as I was expecting to see the @flags
member being preserved across, as I get the race there.
Looking at stmmac driver, it does look like this xsk_tx_metadata_compl
is part of the TX-ring for completion (tx_skbuff_dma) and the
tx_timestamp data is getting stored here. How is userspace AF_XDP
application getting access to the tx_timestamp data?
I though this was suppose to get stored in metadata data area (umem)?
Also looking at the code, the kernel would not have a "crash" race on
the flags member (if we preserve in struct), because the code checks the
driver HW-TS config-state + TX-descriptor for the availability of a
HW-TS in the descriptor.
xsk_tx_metadata_compl stores a pointer to the completion timestamp
in the umem, so everything still arrives via the metadata area.
We want to make sure the flags are not changing across tx and tx completion.
Instead of saving the flags, we just use that xsk_tx_metadata_compl to
signal to the completion that "I know that I've requested the tx
completion timestamp, please put it at this address in umem".
I store the pointer instead of flags to avoid doing pointer math again
at completion. But it's an implementation detail and somewhat abstracted
from the drivers (besides the fact that it's probably has to fit in 8
bytes).
I see it now (what I missed). At TX time you are storing a pointer where
to (later) write the TS at completion time. It just seems overkill to
store 8 byte (pointer) to signal (via NULL) if the HWTS was requested.
Space in the drivers TX-ring is performance critical, and I think driver
developers would prefer to find a bit to indicate HWTS requested.
If HWTS was *NOT* requested, then the metadata area will not be updated
(right, correct?). Then memory area is basically garbage that survived.
How does the AF_XDP application know this packet contains a HWTS or not?
From an UAPI PoV wouldn't it be easier to use (and extend) via keeping
the @flags member (in struct xsk_tx_metadata), but (as you already do)
not let kernel checks depend on it (to avoid the races).
I was assuming the userspace can keep this signal out of band or use
the same idea as suggested with padding struct xsk_tx_metadata to keep
some data around. But I see your point, it might be convenient to
keep the original flags around during completion on the uapi side.
I think I can just move flags from the request union member to the outer
struct. So the struct xsk_tx_metadata would look like:
struct xsk_tx_metadata {
__u32 flags; /* maybe can even make this u64? */
Yes to u64 for two reasons (1) this becomes UAPI and
(2) better alignment for tx_timestamp.
But I'm open to keeping it u32.
union {
__u16 csum_start;
__u16 csum_offset;
} request;
union {
__u64 tx_timestamp;
} completion;
__u32 padding; /* to drop this padding */
};
But I'd also keep the existing xsk_tx_metadata_compl to carry the
pointer+signal around. As I mentioned previously, it's completely
opaque to the driver and we can change the internals in the future.
Sure, it is an implementation detail and my objections are mostly that I
don't find it as a pretty code approach that can be hard to follow.
Maybe driver developer will object and change this later if it cost too
much to increase the element size in their TX-ring queues.
IOW, we won't override the flags from the kernel side and as long
as the userspace consumer doesn't mess them up it should receive
the original value at completion.
Would that work for you?
Yes, that will work for me, thanks!
--Jesper
