Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 05:24:48PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> >> Hangbin Liu wrote:
> >> > This patch add two flags BPF_F_BROADCAST and BPF_F_EXCLUDE_INGRESS to extend
> >> > xdp_redirect_map for broadcast support.
> >> >
> >> > Keep the general data path in net/core/filter.c and the native data
> >> > path in kernel/bpf/devmap.c so we can use direct calls to get better
> >> > performace.
> >> >
> >> > Here is the performance result by using xdp_redirect_{map, map_multi} in
> >> > sample/bpf and send pkts via pktgen cmd:
> >> > ./pktgen_sample03_burst_single_flow.sh -i eno1 -d $dst_ip -m $dst_mac -t 10 -s 64
> >> >
> >> > There are some drop back as we need to loop the map and get each interface.
> >> >
> >> > Version | Test | Generic | Native
> >> > 5.12 rc2 | redirect_map i40e->i40e | 2.0M | 9.8M
> >> > 5.12 rc2 | redirect_map i40e->veth | 1.8M | 12.0M
> >>
> >> Are these are 10gbps i40e ports? Sorry if I asked this earlier, maybe
> >> add a note in the commit if another respin is needed.
> >
> > Yes, I will add it if there is an update.
> >
> >> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/devmap.c b/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> >> > index 3980fb3bfb09..c8452c5f40f8 100644
> >> > --- a/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> >> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> >> > @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ static void dev_map_free(struct bpf_map *map)
> >> > list_del_rcu(&dtab->list);
> >> > spin_unlock(&dev_map_lock);
> >> >
> >> > + bpf_clear_redirect_map(map);
> >>
> >> Is this a bugfix? If its needed here wouldn't we also need it in the
> >> devmap case.
> >
> > No, in ee75aef23afe ("bpf, xdp: Restructure redirect actions") this function
> > was removed. I added it back as we use ri->map again.
> >
> > What devmap case you mean?
> >
> >>
> >> > synchronize_rcu();
> >> >
> >> > /* Make sure prior __dev_map_entry_free() have completed. */
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > +
> >> > +static struct bpf_dtab_netdev *devmap_get_next_obj(struct xdp_buff *xdp,
> >> > + struct bpf_map *map,
> >> > + u32 *key, u32 *next_key,
> >> > + int ex_ifindex)
> >> > +{
> >> > + struct bpf_dtab_netdev *obj;
> >> > + struct net_device *dev;
> >> > + u32 index;
> >> > + int err;
> >> > +
> >> > + err = devmap_get_next_key(map, key, next_key);
> >> > + if (err)
> >> > + return NULL;
> >> > +
> >> > + /* When using dev map hash, we could restart the hashtab traversal
> >> > + * in case the key has been updated/removed in the mean time.
> >> > + * So we may end up potentially looping due to traversal restarts
> >> > + * from first elem.
> >> > + *
> >> > + * Let's use map's max_entries to limit the loop number.
> >> > + */
> >> > + for (index = 0; index < map->max_entries; index++) {
> >> > + obj = devmap_lookup_elem(map, *next_key);
> >> > + if (!obj || dst_dev_is_ingress(obj, ex_ifindex))
> >> > + goto find_next;
> >> > +
> >> > + dev = obj->dev;
> >> > +
> >> > + if (!dev->netdev_ops->ndo_xdp_xmit)
> >> > + goto find_next;
> >> > +
> >> > + err = xdp_ok_fwd_dev(dev, xdp->data_end - xdp->data);
> >> > + if (unlikely(err))
> >> > + goto find_next;
> >> > +
> >> > + return obj;
> >> > +
> >> > +find_next:
> >> > + key = next_key;
> >> > + err = devmap_get_next_key(map, key, next_key);
> >> > + if (err)
> >> > + break;
> >> > + }
> >>
> >> I'm missing something. Either an elaborated commit message or comment
> >> is probably needed. I've been looking at this block for 30 minutes and
> >> can't see how we avoid sending duplicate frames on a single interface?
> >> Can you check this code flow,
> >>
> >> dev_map_enqueue_multi()
> >> for (;;) {
> >> next_obj = devmap_get_next_obj(...)
> >> for (index = 0; index < map->max_entries; index++) {
> >> obj = devmap_lookup_elem();
> >> if (!obj) goto find_next
> >> key = next_key;
> >> err = devmap_get_next_key()
> >> if (!key) goto find_first
> >> for (i = 0; i < dtab->n_buckets; i++)
> >> return *next <- now *next_key is point back
> >> at first entry
> >> // loop back through and find first obj and return that
> >
> > devmap_get_next_key() will loop to find the first one if there is no
> > key or dev. In normal time it will stop after the latest one.
> >> }
> >> bq_enqueue(...) // enqueue original obj
> >> obj = next_obj;
> >> key = next_key;
> >> ... // we are going to enqueue first obj, but how do we know
> >> // this hasn't already been sent? Presumably if we have
> >> // a delete in the hash table in the middle of a multicast
> >> // operation this might happen?
> >> }
> >
> > And yes, there is an corner case that if we removed a dev during multicast,
> > there is an possibility that restart from the first key. But given that
> > this is an unlikely case, and in normal internet there is also a possibility
> > of duplicate/lost packet. This should also be acceptable?
>
> In my mind this falls under "acceptable corner cases". I.e., if you're
> going to use the map for redirect and you expect to be updating it while
> you're doing so, don't use a hashmap. But if you will not be updating
> the map (or find the possible duplication acceptable), you can use the
> hashmap and gain the benefit of being able to index by ifindex.
In a Kubernetes setup its going to be hard, if possible at all, to restrict
the map from moving as interfaces/IPs are going to be dynamic. Using a
hash map has nice benefits of not having to figure out how to put ifindex's
into the array. Although on some early implementations I wrote a small
hashing algorithm over the top of array, so that could work.
I don't know how well multicast applications might handle duplicate packets.
I wouldn't be too surprised if it was problematic. On the other hand missing
an entry that was just added is likely OK. There is no way to know from
network/user side if the entry was actually added before multicast op and
skipped or insert happened just after multicast op. And vice versa for a
delete dev, no way to know the multicast op happened before/after the
delete.
Have we consider doing something like the batch lookup ops over hashtab?
I don't mind "missing" values so if we just walk the list?
head = dev_map_index_hash(dtab, i)
// collect all my devs and get ready to send multicast
hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_safe(dev, next, head, index_hlist) {
enqueue(dev, skb)
}
// submit the queue of entries and do all the work to actually xmit
submit_enqueued();
We don't have to care about keys just walk the hash list?
>
> But John does have a point that this is not obvious; so maybe it should
> be pointed out in the helper documentation?
At minimum it needs to be documented, but really I want to fix it. I
can see the confused end users sending me bug reports already about
duplicate packets.
>
> -Toke
>
