On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 2:19 PM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2023/10/10 15:00, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 1:51 PM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023/10/10 14:45, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 9:52 AM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2023/10/09 19:44, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 3:12 AM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2023/10/09 19:06, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 3:02 AM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2023/10/09 18:57, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 3:57 AM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2023/10/09 17:04, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 3:46 PM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023/10/09 5:08, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 10:04 PM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023/10/09 4:07, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 7:22 AM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtio-net have two usage of hashes: one is RSS and another is hash
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reporting. Conventionally the hash calculation was done by the VMM.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, computing the hash after the queue was chosen defeats the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of RSS.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another approach is to use eBPF steering program. This approach has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another downside: it cannot report the calculated hash due to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive nature of eBPF.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduce the code to compute hashes to the kernel in order to overcome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thse challenges. An alternative solution is to extend the eBPF steering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program so that it will be able to report to the userspace, but it makes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little sense to allow to implement different hashing algorithms with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eBPF since the hash value reported by virtio-net is strictly defined by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the specification.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The hash value already stored in sk_buff is not used and computed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independently since it may have been computed in a way not conformant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the specification.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static const struct tun_vnet_hash_cap tun_vnet_hash_cap = {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + .max_indirection_table_length =
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + TUN_VNET_HASH_MAX_INDIRECTION_TABLE_LENGTH,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + .types = VIRTIO_NET_SUPPORTED_HASH_TYPES
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +};
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No need to have explicit capabilities exchange like this? Tun either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supports all or none.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tun does not support VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_IP_EX,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_TCP_EX, and VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_UDP_EX.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is because the flow dissector does not support IPv6 extensions. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification is also vague, and does not tell how many TLVs should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumed at most when interpreting destination option header so I chose
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid adding code for these hash types to the flow dissector. I doubt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone will complain about it since nobody complains for Linux.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also adding this so that we can extend it later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> max_indirection_table_length may grow for systems with 128+ CPUs, or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> types may have other bits for new protocols in the future.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ret = tun_set_ebpf(tun, &tun->steering_prog, argp);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + bpf_ret = tun_set_ebpf(tun, &tun->steering_prog, argp);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(bpf_ret))
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ret = PTR_ERR(bpf_ret);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + else if (bpf_ret)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + tun->vnet_hash.flags &= ~TUN_VNET_HASH_RSS;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't make one feature disable another.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF and TUNSETVNETHASH are mutually exclusive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions. If one is enabled the other call should fail, with EBUSY
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for instance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + case TUNSETVNETHASH:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + len = sizeof(vnet_hash);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (copy_from_user(&vnet_hash, argp, len)) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ret = -EFAULT;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (((vnet_hash.flags & TUN_VNET_HASH_REPORT) &&
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + (tun->vnet_hdr_sz < sizeof(struct virtio_net_hdr_v1_hash) ||
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + !tun_is_little_endian(tun))) ||
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + vnet_hash.indirection_table_mask >=
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + TUN_VNET_HASH_MAX_INDIRECTION_TABLE_LENGTH) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + argp = (u8 __user *)argp + len;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + len = (vnet_hash.indirection_table_mask + 1) * 2;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (copy_from_user(vnet_hash_indirection_table, argp, len)) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ret = -EFAULT;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + argp = (u8 __user *)argp + len;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + len = virtio_net_hash_key_length(vnet_hash.types);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (copy_from_user(vnet_hash_key, argp, len)) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ret = -EFAULT;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably easier and less error-prone to define a fixed size control
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> struct with the max indirection table size.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I made its size variable because the indirection table and key may grow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the future as I wrote above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw: please trim the CC: list considerably on future patches.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll do so in the next version with the TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF change you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear: please don't just resubmit with that one change.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The skb and cb issues are quite fundamental issues that need to be resolved.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to understand why adjusting the existing BPF feature for this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> exact purpose cannot be amended to return the key it produced.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> eBPF steering program is not designed for this particular problem in my
> >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. It was introduced to derive hash values with an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of application-specific semantics of packets instead of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> generic IP/TCP/UDP semantics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This problem is rather different in terms that the hash derivation is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> strictly defined by virtio-net. I don't think it makes sense to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the complexity of BPF when you always run the same code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It can utilize the existing flow dissector and also make it easier to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> use for the userspace by implementing this in the kernel.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ok. There does appear to be overlap in functionality. But it might be
> >>>>>>>>>>> easier to deploy to just have standard Toeplitz available without
> >>>>>>>>>>> having to compile and load an eBPF program.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> As for the sk_buff and cb[] changes. The first is really not needed.
> >>>>>>>>>>> sk_buff simply would not scale if every edge case needs a few bits.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> An alternative is to move the bit to cb[] and clear it for every code
> >>>>>>>>>> paths that lead to ndo_start_xmit(), but I'm worried that it is error-prone.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I think we can put the bit in sk_buff for now. We can implement the
> >>>>>>>>>> alternative when we are short of bits.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I disagree. sk_buff fields add a cost to every code path. They cannot
> >>>>>>>>> be added for every edge case.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It only takes an unused bit and does not grow the sk_buff size so I
> >>>>>>>> think it has practically no cost for now.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The problem is that that thinking leads to death by a thousand cuts.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "for now" forces the cost of having to think hard how to avoid growing
> >>>>>>> sk_buff onto the next person. Let's do it right from the start.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I see. I described an alternative to move the bit to cb[] and clear it
> >>>>>> in all code paths that leads to ndo_start_xmit() earlier. Does that
> >>>>>> sound good to you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you use the control block to pass information between
> >>>>> __dev_queue_xmit on the tun device and tun_net_xmit, using gso_skb_cb,
> >>>>> the field can be left undefined in all non-tun paths. tun_select_queue
> >>>>> can initialize.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem is that tun_select_queue() is not always called.
> >>>> netdev_core_pick_tx() ensures dev->real_num_tx_queues != 1 before
> >>>> calling it, but this variable may change later and result in a race
> >>>> condition. Another case is that XDP with predefined queue.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would still use skb->hash to encode the hash. That hash type of that
> >>>>> field is not strictly defined. It can be siphash from ___skb_get_hash
> >>>>> or a device hash, which most likely also uses Toeplitz. Then you also
> >>>>> don't run into the problem of growing the struct size.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm concerned exactly because it's not strictly defined. Someone may
> >>>> decide to overwrite it later if we are not cautious enough. qdisc_skb_cb
> >>>> also has sufficient space to contain both of the hash value and type.
> >>>
> >>> How about using skb extensions?
> >>
> >> I think it will work. I'll try it in the next version.
> >
> > Btw, I still think using eBPF for hash might be better.
> >
> > Though the hashing rule is defined in the spec, it may be extended in
> > the future. For example, several extensions has been proposed:
> >
> > 1) RSS context
> > 2) encapsulated packet hashing
>
> Looking at the proposals, I'm now more inclined to extend the BPF
> steering program.
Just to make sure we are at the same page.
If the eBPF program needs to access skb extensions, it would not be a
steering program anymore (not a filter).
Or do you mean it is a dedicated eBPF program that calculates the hash?
>
> Yuri, who wrote the RFC patches to extend the BPF steering program, also
> raised an concern that it may become hard to implement virtio-net
> extensions in the future. It is much easier to deploy a new BPF program
> to support extensions since it will be included in QEMU and can be
> deployed at once without concerning other kernel stuff.
>
> I was still not sure how likely such an extension will emerge especially
> when the hardware RSS capability is not evolving for a decade or so. But
> those proposals show that there are more demands of new features for
> virtio-net.
It's not only the RSS, if you track virtio development, flow directors
are also being proposed.
Thanks
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
