Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > 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?
>
> So you'd wrap that in a loop like:
>
> for (i = 0; i < dtab->n_buckets; i++) {
> head = dev_map_index_hash(dtab, i);
> hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_safe(dev, next, head, index_hlist) {
> bq_enqueue(dev, xdpf, dev_rx, obj->xdp_prog);
> }
> }
>
> or? Yeah, I guess that would work!
Nice. Thanks for sticking with this Hangbin its taking us a bit, but
I think above works on my side at least.
>
> It would mean that dev_map_enqueue_multi() would need more in-depth
> knowledge into the map type, so would likely need to be two different
> functions for the two different map types, living in devmap.c - but
> that's probably acceptable.
Yeah, I think thats fine.
>
> And while we're doing that, the array-map version can also loop over all
> indexes up to max_entries, instead of stopping at the first index that
> doesn't have an entry like it does now (right now, it looks like if you
> populate entries 0 and 2 in an array-map only one copy of the packet
> will be sent, to index 0).
Right, this is likely needed anyways. At least when I was doing prototypes
of using array maps I often ended up with holes in the map. Just imagine
adding a set of devs and then removing one, its not likely to be the
last one you insert.
>
> It makes it a bit more awkward to do Hangbin's clever trick to avoid
> doing an extra copy by aborting the loop early. But I guess the same
> technique could apply...
>
> -Toke
>
