On 03/29, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
On 29/03/2023 19.18, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 03/29, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> > On 28/03/2023 23.58, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > On 03/28, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > > The RSS hash type specifies what portion of packet data NIC
hardware used
> > > > when calculating RSS hash value. The RSS types are focused on
Internet
> > > > traffic protocols at OSI layers L3 and L4. L2 (e.g. ARP) often
get hash
> > > > value zero and no RSS type. For L3 focused on IPv4 vs. IPv6, and
L4
> > > > primarily TCP vs UDP, but some hardware supports SCTP.
> > >
> > > > Hardware RSS types are differently encoded for each hardware NIC.
Most
> > > > hardware represent RSS hash type as a number. Determining L3 vs
L4 often
> > > > requires a mapping table as there often isn't a pattern or sorting
> > > > according to ISO layer.
> > >
> > > > The patch introduce a XDP RSS hash type (xdp_rss_hash_type) that
can both
> > > > be seen as a number that is ordered according by ISO layer, and
can be bit
> > > > masked to separate IPv4 and IPv6 types for L4 protocols. Room is
available
> > > > for extending later while keeping these properties. This maps and
unifies
> > > > difference to hardware specific hashes.
> > >
> > > Looks good overall. Any reason we're making this specific layout?
>
> > One important goal is to have a simple/fast way to determining L3 vs
L4,
> > because a L4 hash can be used for flow handling (e.g. load-balancing).
>
> > We below layout you can:
>
> > if (rss_type & XDP_RSS_TYPE_L4_MASK)
> > bool hw_hash_do_LB = true;
>
> > Or using it as a number:
>
> > if (rss_type > XDP_RSS_TYPE_L4)
> > bool hw_hash_do_LB = true;
>
> Why is it strictly better then the following?
>
> if (rss_type & (TYPE_UDP | TYPE_TCP | TYPE_SCTP)) {}
>
See V2 I dropped the idea of this being a number (that idea was not a
good idea).
👍
> If we add some new L4 format, the bpf programs can be updated to support
> it?
>
> > I'm very open to changes to my "specific" layout. I am in doubt if
> > using it as a number is the right approach and worth the trouble.
>
> > > Why not simply the following?
> > >
> > > enum {
> > > ����XDP_RSS_TYPE_NONE = 0,
> > > ����XDP_RSS_TYPE_IPV4 = BIT(0),
> > > ����XDP_RSS_TYPE_IPV6 = BIT(1),
> > > ����/* IPv6 with extension header. */
> > > ����/* let's note ^^^ it in the UAPI? */
> > > ����XDP_RSS_TYPE_IPV6_EX = BIT(2),
> > > ����XDP_RSS_TYPE_UDP = BIT(3),
> > > ����XDP_RSS_TYPE_TCP = BIT(4),
> > > ����XDP_RSS_TYPE_SCTP = BIT(5),
>
> > We know these bits for UDP, TCP, SCTP (and IPSEC) are exclusive, they
> > cannot be set at the same time, e.g. as a packet cannot both be UDP
and
> > TCP. Thus, using these bits as a number make sense to me, and is more
> > compact.
>
> [..]
>
> > This BIT() approach also have the issue of extending it later (forward
> > compatibility). As mentioned a common task will be to check if
> > hash-type is a L4 type. See mlx5 [patch 4/4] needed to extend with
> > IPSEC. Notice how my XDP_RSS_TYPE_L4_MASK covers all the bits that
this
> > can be extended with new L4 types, such that existing progs will still
> > work checking for L4 check. It can of-cause be solved in the same way
> > for this BIT() approach by reserving some bits upfront in a mask.
>
> We're using 6 bits out of 64, we should be good for awhile? If there
> is ever a forward compatibility issue, we can always come up with
> a new kfunc.
I want/need store the RSS-type in the xdp_frame, for XDP_REDIRECT and
SKB use-cases. Thus, I don't want to use 64-bit/8-bytes, as xdp_frame
size is limited (given it reduces headroom expansion).
>
> One other related question I have is: should we export the type
> over some additional new kfunc argument? (instead of abusing the return
> type)
Good question. I was also wondering if it wouldn't be better to add
another kfunc argument with the rss_hash_type?
That will change the call signature, so that will not be easy to handle
between kernel releases.
Agree with Toke on a separate thread; might not be too late to fit it
into an rc..
> Maybe that will let us drop the explicit BTF_TYPE_EMIT as well?
Sure, if we define it as an argument, then it will automatically
exported as BTF.
> > > }
> > >
> > > And then using XDP_RSS_TYPE_IPV4|XDP_RSS_TYPE_UDP vs
> > > XDP_RSS_TYPE_IPV6|XXX ?
>
> > Do notice, that I already does some level of or'ing ("|") in this
> > proposal. The main difference is that I hide this from the driver,
and
> > kind of pre-combine the valid combination (enum's) drivers can select
> > from. I do get the point, and I think I will come up with a combined
> > solution based on your input.
>
>
> > The RSS hashing types and combinations comes from M$ standards:
> > [1]
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/network/rss-hashing-types#ipv4-hash-type-combinations
>
> My main concern here is that we're over-complicating it with the masks
> and the format. With the explicit bits we can easily map to that
> spec you mention.
See if you like my RFC-V2 proposal better.
It should go more in your direction.
Yeah, I like it better. Btw, why have a separate bit for XDP_RSS_BIT_EX?
Any reason it's not a XDP_RSS_L3_IPV6_EX within XDP_RSS_L3_MASK?
And the following part seems like a leftover from the earlier version:
+/* For partitioning of xdp_rss_hash_type */
+#define RSS_L3 GENMASK(2,0) /* 3-bits = values between 1-7 */
+#define L4_BIT BIT(3) /* 1-bit - L4 indication */
+#define RSS_L4_IPV4 GENMASK(6,4) /* 3-bits */
+#define RSS_L4_IPV6 GENMASK(9,7) /* 3-bits */
+#define RSS_L4 GENMASK(9,3) /* = 7-bits - covering L4 IPV4+IPV6 */
+#define L4_IPV6_EX_BIT BIT(9) /* 1-bit - L4 IPv6 with Extension hdr
*/
+ /* 11-bits in total */
> For example, for forward compat, I'm not sure we can assume that the
people
> will do:
> "rss_type & XDP_RSS_TYPE_L4_MASK"
> instead of something like:
> "rss_type & (XDP_RSS_TYPE_L4_IPV4_TCP|XDP_RSS_TYPE_L4_IPV4_UDP)"
>
This code is allowed in V2 and should be. It is a choice of
BPF-programmer in line-2 to not be forward compatible with newer L4 types.
> > > > This proposal change the kfunc API bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_hash() to
return
> > > > this RSS hash type on success.
This is the real question (as also raised above)...
Should we use return value or add an argument for type?
Let's fix the prototype while it's still early in the rc?
Maybe also extend the tests to drop/decode/verify the mask?
--Jesper
