netdev - Re: Fwd: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] virtio

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:52:53 +0800
From:	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
To:	Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] virtio_net: add aRFS support

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 04:34:10PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
> CC: stefanha, MST, Rusty Russel
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> Date: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] virtio_net: add aRFS support
> To: Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@...il.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, therbert@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
> davem@...emloft.net, Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> 
> On 01/15/2014 10:20 PM, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
> >
> > From: Zhi Yong Wu<wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > HI, folks
> >
> > The patchset is trying to integrate aRFS support to virtio_net. In this case,
> > aRFS will be used to select the RX queue. To make sure that it's going ahead
> > in the correct direction, although it is still one RFC and isn't tested, it's
> > post out ASAP. Any comment are appreciated, thanks.
> >
> > If anyone is interested in playing with it, you can get this patchset from my
> > dev git on github:
> >    git://github.com/wuzhy/kernel.git virtnet_rfs
> >
> > Zhi Yong Wu (3):
> >    virtio_pci: Introduce one new config api vp_get_vq_irq()
> >    virtio_net: Introduce one dummy function virtnet_filter_rfs()
> >    virtio-net: Add accelerated RFS support
> >
> >   drivers/net/virtio_net.c      |   67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >   drivers/virtio/virtio_pci.c   |   11 +++++++
> >   include/linux/virtio_config.h |   12 +++++++
> >   3 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> 
> Please run get_maintainter.pl before sending the patch. You'd better
> at least cc virtio maintainer/list for this.
> 
> The core aRFS method is a noop in this RFC which make this series no
> much sense to discuss. You should at least mention the big picture
> here in the cover letter. I suggest you should post a RFC which can
> run and has expected result or you can just raise a thread for the
> design discussion.
> 
> And this method has been discussed before, you can search "[net-next
> RFC PATCH 5/5] virtio-net: flow director support" in netdev archive
> for a very old prototype implemented by me. It can work and looks like
> most of this RFC have already done there.
> 
> A basic question is whether or not we need this, not all the mq cards
> use aRFS (see ixgbe ATR). And whether or not it can bring extra
> overheads? For virtio, we want to reduce the vmexits as much as
> possible but this aRFS seems introduce a lot of more of this. Making a
> complex interfaces just for an virtual device may not be good, simple
> method may works for most of the cases.
> 
> We really should consider to offload this to real nic. VMDq and L2
> forwarding offload may help in this case.

Zhi Yong and I had an IRC chat.  I wanted to post my questions on the
list - it's still the same concern I had in the old email thread that
Jason mentioned.

In order for virtio-net aRFS to make sense there needs to be an overall
plan for pushing flow mapping information down to the physical NIC.
That's the only way to actually achieve the benefit of steering:
processing the packet on the CPU where the application is running.

If it's not possible or too hard to implement aRFS down the entire
stack, we won't be able to process the packet on the right CPU.
Then we might as well not bother with aRFS and just distribute uniformly
across the rx virtqueues.

Please post an outline of how rx packets will be steered up the stack so
we can discuss whether aRFS can bring any benefit.

Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html