On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 10:53:40AM +0100, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:14 AM Cameron Elliott
> <cameron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, I am trying to measure the maximum mpps I can push using AF_XDP on a 40G X710
> >
> > I can do 22 mpps after resolving a few bumbles I made with drivers, etc., (Thanks Magnus!)
> > when using a single instance of 'xdpsock'
> >
> >
> > Apparently the way to upto 50, 60 or 70? mpps is to use multiple cores...
> > And apparently the simple way to do that, is multiple instances of xdpsock on different queues.
> >
> > But, my attempts with multiple instances fail. :(
> >
> >
> >
> > First, I checked my channel setup:
> >
> > $ sudo ethtool --set-channels enp1s0f0
> > no channel parameters changed.
> > current values: rx 0 tx 0 other 1 combined 4
> >
> > I presume that is okay...
> >
> > Then I run these two commands in two different windows:
> >
> > sudo /home/c/bpf-next/samples/bpf/xdpsock -i enp1s0f0 -t -N -z -q 0
> > sudo /home/c/bpf-next/samples/bpf/xdpsock -i enp1s0f0 -t -N -z -q 1
> >
> > With the only difference being the queue id.
> >
> > The first will start and show ~22 mpps tx rate.
> > When I start the second, both instances die:
> >
> > The first instace dies with:
> > /home/c/bpf-next/samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c:kick_tx:794: errno: 100/"Network is down"
> >
> > The second instance dies with:
> > /home/c/bpf-next/samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c:kick_tx:794: errno: 6/"No such device or address"
> >
> >
> > Do I understand correctly I should be able to run two instances like this concurrently?
>
> This is probably not supported by the current xdpsock application.
> What is likely happening is that it tries to load the XDP program
> multiple times. As the XDP program is per netdev, not per queue, it
> should only be loaded once. When the second process then fails, it
> probably removes the XDP program (as it think it has loaded it) which
> crashes the first process you started.
Of course it *was* supported. Program is loaded only on the first xdpsock
instance since libbpf is checking whether xdp resources are there. On the
removal part you're right, we still haven't figured it out how to properly
exit the xdpsock when there are other xdpsocks running.
Actually commit b3873a5be757 ("net/i40e: Fix concurrency issues between
config flow and XSK") (CCing Maxim, Bjorn) broke the xdpsock multiple
instances support. If we drop the check against busy bit in PF state in
the i40e_xsk_wakeup, then I can run many xdpsocks on same ifindex.
I'm not really sure that is the right approach since we are explicitly
setting the __I40E_CONFIG_BUSY bit in i40e_queue_pair_disable which is
used when ndo_bpf is called with XDP_SETUP_XSK_UMEM command.
>
> So, the application needs to get extended to support this. Maybe you
> want to do this :-)? Could be a good exercise. You could add a new
> commend line option that takes the number of instances you would like
> to create. Look at the -M option for some inspiration as it does some
> of the things you need. Maybe you can reuse that code to support your
> use case.
>
> /Magnus
>
> >
> > Thank you for any ideas, input.
> >
> >
> >
> > # ethtool dump / i40e driver from recent bpf-next clone
> > c@lumen ~> ethtool -i enp1s0f0
> > driver: i40e
> > version: 2.8.20-k
> > firmware-version: 7.10 0x80006456 1.2527.0
> > expansion-rom-version:
> > bus-info: 0000:01:00.0
> > supports-statistics: yes
> > supports-test: yes
> > supports-eeprom-access: yes
> > supports-register-dump: yes
> > supports-priv-flags: yes
> >
> >
|