Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Toke,
>
> On 2023-01-17 22:58:57 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > Hi Lorenzo and Marek,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your work.
>> >
>> > On 2023-01-14 16:54:32 +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Turn 'hw-offload' feature flag on for:
>> >> - netronome (nfp)
>> >> - netdevsim.
>> >
>> > Is there a definition of the 'hw-offload' written down somewhere? From
>> > reading this series I take it is the ability to offload a BPF program?
>>
>> Yeah, basically this means "allows loading and attaching programs in
>> XDP_MODE_HW", I suppose :)
>>
>> > It would also be interesting to read documentation for the other flags
>> > added in this series.
>>
>> Yup, we should definitely document them :)
>>
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_common.c
>> >> b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_common.c
>> >> index 18fc9971f1c8..5a8ddeaff74d 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_common.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_common.c
>> >> @@ -2529,10 +2529,14 @@ static void nfp_net_netdev_init(struct nfp_net *nn)
>> >> netdev->features &= ~NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_STAG_RX;
>> >> nn->dp.ctrl &= ~NFP_NET_CFG_CTRL_RXQINQ;
>> >>
>> >> + nn->dp.netdev->xdp_features = NETDEV_XDP_ACT_BASIC |
>> >> + NETDEV_XDP_ACT_HW_OFFLOAD;
>> >
>> > If my assumption about the 'hw-offload' flag above is correct I think
>> > NETDEV_XDP_ACT_HW_OFFLOAD should be conditioned on that the BPF firmware
>> > flavor is in use.
>> >
>> > nn->dp.netdev->xdp_features = NETDEV_XDP_ACT_BASIC;
>> >
>> > if (nn->app->type->id == NFP_APP_BPF_NIC)
>> > nn->dp.netdev->xdp_features |= NETDEV_XDP_ACT_HW_OFFLOAD;
>> >
>> >> +
>> >> /* Finalise the netdev setup */
>> >> switch (nn->dp.ops->version) {
>> >> case NFP_NFD_VER_NFD3:
>> >> netdev->netdev_ops = &nfp_nfd3_netdev_ops;
>> >> + nn->dp.netdev->xdp_features |= NETDEV_XDP_ACT_XSK_ZEROCOPY;
>> >> break;
>> >> case NFP_NFD_VER_NFDK:
>> >> netdev->netdev_ops = &nfp_nfdk_netdev_ops;
>> >
>> > This is also a wrinkle I would like to understand. Currently NFP support
>> > zero-copy on NFD3, but not for offloaded BPF programs. But with the BPF
>> > firmware flavor running the device can still support zero-copy for
>> > non-offloaded programs.
>> >
>> > Is it a problem that the driver advertises support for both
>> > hardware-offload _and_ zero-copy at the same time, even if they can't be
>> > used together but separately?
>>
>> Hmm, so the idea with this is to only expose feature flags that are
>> supported "right now" (you'll note that some of the drivers turn the
>> REDIRECT_TARGET flag on and off at runtime). Having features that are
>> "supported but in a different configuration" is one of the points of
>> user confusion we want to clear up with the explicit flags.
>>
>> So I guess it depends a little bit what you mean by "can't be used
>> together"? I believe it's possible to load two programs at the same
>> time, one in HW mode and one in native (driver) mode, right? In this
>> case, could the driver mode program use XSK zerocopy while the HW mode
>> program is also loaded?
>
> Exactly, this is my concern. Two programs can be loaded at the same
> time, one in HW mode and one in native mode. The program in native mode
> can use zero-copy at the same time as another program runs in HW mode.
>
> But the program running in HW mode can never use zero-copy.
Hmm, but zero-copy is an AF_XDP feature, and AFAIK offloaded programs
can't use AF_XDP at all? So the zero-copy "feature" is available on the
hardware, it's just intrinsic to that feature that it doesn't work on
offloaded programs?
Which goes back to: yeah, we should document what the feature flags mean :)
-Toke
