On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:55:25AM +0200, Jörn-Thorben Hinz wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, Martin.
>
> On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 11:33 -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 07:48:43PM +0200, Jörn-Thorben Hinz wrote:
> > > When a CC implements tcp_congestion_ops.cong_control(), the
> > > alternate
> > > cong_avoid() is not in use in the TCP stack. Do not force a BPF CC
> > > to
> > > implement cong_avoid() as a no-op by always requiring it.
> > >
> > > An incomplete BPF CC implementing neither cong_avoid() nor
> > > cong_control() will still get rejected by
> > > tcp_register_congestion_control().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jörn-Thorben Hinz <jthinz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c | 1 +
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c b/net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c
> > > index 1f5c53ede4e5..37290d0bf134 100644
> > > --- a/net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c
> > > +++ b/net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c
> > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ extern struct bpf_struct_ops
> > > bpf_tcp_congestion_ops;
> > > static u32 optional_ops[] = {
> > > offsetof(struct tcp_congestion_ops, init),
> > > offsetof(struct tcp_congestion_ops, release),
> > > + offsetof(struct tcp_congestion_ops, cong_avoid),
> > At least one of the cong_avoid() or cong_control() is needed.
> > It is better to remove is_optional(moff) check and its optional_ops[]
> > here. Only depends on the tcp_register_congestion_control() which
> > does a similar check at the beginning.
> You mean completely remove this part of the validation from
> bpf_tcp_ca.c and just rely on tcp_register_congestion_control()? True,
Yes.
> that would be even easier to maintain at this point, make
> tcp_register_congestion_control() the one-and-only place that has to
> know about required and optional functions.
>
> Will rework the second patch.
>
> >
> > Patch 1 looks good. tcp_bbr.c also needs the sk_pacing fields.
> >
> > A selftest is needed. Can you share your bpf tcp-cc and
> > use it as a selftest to exercise the change in this patch
> > set ?
> I cannot do that just now, unfortunately. It’s still earlier work in
> progress. Also, it will have an additional, external dependency which
> might make it unfit to be included here/as a selftest. I will keep it
> in mind for later this year, though.
What is the external dependency ? Could you share some high level
of the CC you are developing ?
The reason for this question is to see if there is something
missing from the kernel side to write the tcp-cc in bpf that you
are developing.
> In the meantime, I could look into adding a more naive/trivial test,
> that implements cong_control() without cong_avoid() and relies on
> sk_pacing_* being writable, if you would prefer that? Would that be
> fine as a follow-up patch (might take me a moment) or better be
> included in this series?
Yeah, it will do and the test should be submitted together in
this series.
