netdev - Re: [net-next V2 08/15] net/mlx5e: Add TX PTP port object support

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:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 16:24:26 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...dia.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next V2 08/15] net/mlx5e: Add TX PTP port object support

On Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:57:36 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 15:17 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Dec 2020 13:57:49 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:  
> > > > > option 2) route PTP traffic to a special SQs per ring, this SQ
> > > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > PTP port accurate, Normal traffic will continue through regular
> > > > > SQs
> > > > > 
> > > > > Pros: Regular non PTP traffic not affected.
> > > > > Cons: High memory footprint for creating special SQs
> > > > > 
> > > > > So we prefer (2) + private flag to avoid the performance hit
> > > > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > redundant memory usage out of the box.    
> > > > 
> > > > Option 3 - have only one special PTP queue in the system. PTP
> > > > traffic
> > > > is rather low rate, queue per core doesn't seem necessary.  
> > > 
> > > We only forward ptp traffic to the new special queue but we create
> > > more
> > > than one to avoid internal locking as we will utilize the tx
> > > softirq
> > > percpu.  
> > 
> > In other words to make the driver implementation simpler we'll have
> > a pretty basic feature hidden behind a ethtool priv knob and a number
> > of queues which doesn't match reality reported to user space. Hm.  
> 
> I look at these queues as a special HW objects to allow the accurate
> PTP stamping, they piggyback on the reported txqs, so they are
> transparent, 

But they are visible to the stack, via sysfs, netlink. Any check
in the kernel that tries to help the driver by validating user input
against real_num_tx_queues will be moot for mlx5e.

mlx5e hides the AF_XDP queues behind normal RSS queues, but it would
have extra visible queues for TX PTP.

> they just increase the memory footprint of each ring.

For every ring or for every TC? (which is hopefully 1 in any non-DCB
deployment?)

> for the priv flags, one of the floating ideas was to
> use hwtstamp_rx_filters flags:
>  
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h#L107
> 
> Our hardware timestamps all packets for free whether you request it or
> not, Currently there is no option to setup "ALL_PTP" traffic in ethtool
> -T, but we can add this flag as it make sense to be in ethtool -T, thus
> we could use it in mlx5 to determine if user selected ALL_PTP, then ptp
> packets will go through this accurate special path.
> 
> This is not a W/A or an abuse to the new flag, it just means if you
> select ALL_PTP then a side effect will be our HW will be more accurate 
> for PTP traffic.
> 
> What do you think ?

That sounds much better than the priv flag, yes.

> Regarding reducing to a single special queue, i will discuss with Eran
> and the Team on Sunday.

Okay, thanks.