On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 09:49, Gaul, Maximilian <maximilian.gaul@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 09:20, Gaul, Maximilian <maximilian.gaul@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't know if this reply works but I will try.
> >>
> >
> >It worked! :-)
> >
> >> On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 08:55, Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hello everyone,
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Hi! I'm moving this to the XDP newbies list, which is a more proper
> >> > place for these kind of discussions!
> >> >
> >> Sure, no problem. Thank you.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am not sure if this is the correct address for my question / problem but I was forwarded to this e-mail from the libbpf github-issue section, so this is my excuse.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Just a few information at the start of this e-mail: My program is largely based on: https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tutorial/tree/master/advanced03-AF_XDP and I am using libbpf: https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I am currently trying to build an application that enables me to process multiple udp-multicast streams at once in parallel (each with up to several ten-thousands of packets per second).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> My first solution was to steer each multicast-stream on a separate RX-Queue on my NIC via `ethtool -N <if> flow-type udp4 ...` and to spawn as much user-space processes (each with a separate AF-XDP socket connected to one of the RX-Queues) as there are streams to process.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> But because this solution is limited to the amount of RX-Queues the NIC has and I wanted to build something hardware-independent, I looked around a bit and found a feature called `XDP_SHARED_UMEM`.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > Let's start with defining what shared-umem is: The idea is to share
> >> > the same umem, fill ring, and completion ring for multiple
> >> > sockets. The sockets sharing that umem/fr/cr are tied (bound) to one
> >> > hardware ring. It's a mechanism to load-balance a HW queue over
> >> > multiple sockets.
> >> >
> >> > If I'm reading you correctly, you'd like a solution:
> >> >
> >> > hw_q0,
> >> > xsk_q0_0, xsk_q0_1, xsk_q0_2,
> >> >
> >> > instead of:
> >> >
> >> > hw_q0, hw_q1, hw_q2,
> >> > xsk_q0_0, xsk_q1_0, xsk_q2_0,
> >> >
> >> > In the first case you'll need to mux the flows in the XDP program
> >> > using an XSKMAP.
> >> >
> >> > Is this what you're trying to do?
> >> >
> >> Yes it is. But I had the problem that I couldn't create multiple sockets (no sharing, everyone with its own umem and rx/tx queues) tied to the same RX-Queue. Maybe I did something wrong. But is this possible?
> >
> >No; one socket, one umem, one queue. Unless you're using shared umem,
> >then multiple sockets, one umem, one queue.
> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> As far as I understand (please correct me if I am wrong), at the moment libbpf only supports shared umem between threads of a process but not between processes - right?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yes, that is correct, and for a reason! :-) Note that if you'd like to
> >> > do a multi-*process* setup with shared umem, you: need to have a
> >> > control process that manages the fill/completion rings, and
> >> > synchronize between the processes, OR re-mmap the fill/completetion
> >> > ring from the socket owning the umem in multiple processes *and*
> >> > synchronize the access to them. Neither is pleasant.
> >> >
> >> > Honestly, not a setup I'd recommend.
> >> >
> >> This indeed sounds very unpleasent. So instead, if I understand correctly, you would go with the version above (the XDP program distributing the packets on the sockets via a XSKMAP). Is there something I have to watch out for? As I said, I wasn't able to create multiple sockets for the same RX-Queue.
> >
> >I would probably go for the first option, without shared umem, but
> >that's really up to you! If you're going for the shared umem, I'd do
> >it single process.
> >
>
> I am sorry but I am confused, you just said *No; one socket, one umem, one queue.*. How would I be able to follow your rough sketch of
>
> hw_q0
> xsk_q0_0, xsk_q0_1, xsk_q0_2
>
> I don't have deep knowledge about XDP and the pipeline, maybe there is something I am missing. I am sorry.
>
No worries! :-)
Above you wrote "I couldn't create multiple sockets (no sharing,
everyone with its own umem and rx/tx queues) tied to the same
RX-Queue. Maybe I did something wrong." You can *only* tie multiple
sockets to one queue by using shared umem. You said that "everyone
with its own umem and rx/tx queues) tied to the same RX-Queue".
If you'd like to go for the setup above, you can do this with libbpf
today (have a look at the sample, where opt_num_xsks > 1). That will
however be a single process solution.
Clearer?
Björn
> >> >> I ran unto the problem, that `struct xsk_umem` is hidden in `xsk.c`. This prevents me from copying the content from the original socket / umem into shared memory. I am not sure, what information the sub-process (the one which is using the umem from another process) needs so I figured the simplest solution would be to just copy the whole umem struct.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Just for completeness; To setup shared umem:
> >> >
> >> > 1. create socket 0 and register the umem to this.
> >> > 2. mmap the fr/cr using socket 0
> >> > 3. create socket 1, 2, n and refer to socket 0 for the umem.
> >> >
> >> > So, in a multiprocess solution step 3 would be done in separate
> >> > processes, and step 2 depending on your application. You'd need to
> >> > pass socket 0 to the other processes *and* share the umem memory from
> >> > the process where socket 0 was created. This is pretty much a threaded
> >> > solution, given all the shared state.
> >> >
> >> > I advice not taking this path.
> >> >
> >> I am not entirely sure what you mean with *passing socket 0* is this just the fd of the socket? What's about the `struct xsk_umem`? Do I need that? I guess so because `xsk_socket__create()` has a parameter `struct xsk_umem`.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> So I went with the "quick-fix" to just move the definition of `struct xsk_umem` into `xsk.h` and to copy the umem-information from the original process into a shared memory. This process then calls `fork()` thus spawning a sub-process. This sub-process then reads the previously written umem-information from shared memory and passes it into `xsk_configure_socket` (af_xdp_user.c) which then eventually calls `xsk_socket__create` in `xsk.c`. This function then checks for `umem->refcount` and sets the flags for shared umem accordingly.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> After returning from `xsk_socket__create` (we are still in `xsk_configure_socket` in af_xdp_user.c), `bpf_get_link_xdp_id` is called (I don't know if that's necessary). But after that call I exit the function `xsk_socket__create` in the sub-process because I figured it is probably bad to configure the umem a second time by calling `xsk_ring_prod__reserve` after that:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> static struct xsk_socket_info *xsk_configure_socket(struct config *cfg, struct xsk_umem_info *umem) {
> >> >>
> >> >> struct xsk_socket_config xsk_cfg;
> >> >> struct xsk_socket_info *xsk_info;
> >> >> uint32_t idx;
> >> >> uint32_t prog_id = 0;
> >> >> int i;
> >> >> int ret;
> >> >>
> >> >> xsk_info = calloc(1, sizeof(*xsk_info));
> >> >> if (!xsk_info)
> >> >> return NULL;
> >> >>
> >> >> xsk_info->umem = umem;
> >> >> xsk_cfg.rx_size = XSK_RING_CONS__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS;
> >> >> xsk_cfg.tx_size = XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS;
> >> >> xsk_cfg.libbpf_flags = 0;
> >> >> xsk_cfg.xdp_flags = cfg->xdp_flags;
> >> >> xsk_cfg.bind_flags = cfg->xsk_bind_flags;
> >> >> ret = xsk_socket__create(&xsk_info->xsk, cfg->ifname, cfg->xsk_if_queue, umem->umem, &xsk_info->rx, &xsk_info->tx, &xsk_cfg);
> >> >>
> >> >> if (ret) {
> >> >> fprintf(stderr, "FAIL 1\n");
> >> >> goto error_exit;
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> ret = bpf_get_link_xdp_id(cfg->ifindex, &prog_id, cfg->xdp_flags);
> >> >> if (ret) {
> >> >> fprintf(stderr, "FAIL 2\n");
> >> >> goto error_exit;
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> /* Initialize umem frame allocation */
> >> >> for (i = 0; i < NUM_FRAMES; i++)
> >> >> xsk_info->umem_frame_addr[i] = i * FRAME_SIZE;
> >> >>
> >> >> xsk_info->umem_frame_free = NUM_FRAMES;
> >> >>
> >> >> if(cfg->use_shrd_umem) {
> >> >> return xsk_info;
> >> >> }
> >> >> ...
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> Somehow what I am doing doesn't work because my sub-process dies in `xsk_configure_socket`. I am not able to debug it properly with GDB though. Another point I don't understand is the statement:
> >> >>
> >> >> However, note that you need to supply the XSK_LIBBPF_FLAGS__INHIBIT_PROG_LOAD libbpf_flag with the xsk_socket__create calls and load your own XDP program as there is no built in one in libbpf that will route the traffic for you.
> >> >>
> >> >> from https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/af_xdp.html#xdp-shared-umem-bind-flag
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't know that libbpf loads a XDP-program? Why would it do that? I am using my own af-xdp program which filters for udp-packets. If I set `xsk_cfg.libbpf_flags = XSK_LIBBPF_FLAGS__INHIBIT_PROG_LOAD;` in `xsk_configure_socket`, the af-xdp-socket fd is not put into the kernel `xsks-map` which basically means that I don't receive any packets.
> >> >>
> >> >> As you probably already noticed, I am overstrained with the concept of Shared Umem and I have to say, there is no documentation about it besides the two sentences in https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/af_xdp.html#xdp-shared-umem-bind-flag and a mail in a linux mailbox from Nov. 2019 stating that this feature is now implemented.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you please help?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > XDP sockets always use an XDP program, it just that a default one is
> >> > provided if the use doesn't explicitly add one. Have a look at
> >> > tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c:xsk_load_xdp_prog. So, for shared umem you need to
> >> > explicitly have a program that muxes over the sockets. A naïve variant
> >> > can be found in samples/bpf/xdpsock_kern.c
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Björn
> >> >
> >> >> Best regards
> >> >>
> >> >> Max
> >>
|