linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] sfc: revert "reduce the number of requested xdp ev queues"

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, 9 Jul 2021 17:06:57 +0200
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        Íñigo Huguet <ihuguet@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, ivan@...udflare.com,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sfc: revert "reduce the number of requested xdp ev
 queues"



On 09/07/2021 16.07, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 08/07/2021 13:14, Íñigo Huguet wrote:
>> In my opinion, there is no reason to make that distinction between
>> normal traffic and XDP traffic.
>> [...]
>> If the user wants to prevent XDP from mixing with normal traffic, just
>> not attaching an XDP program to the interface, or not using
>> XDP_TX/REDIRECT in it would be enough. Probably I don't understand
>> what you want to say here.
> 
> I think it's less about that and more about avoiding lock contention.
> If two sources (XDP and the regular stack) are both trying to use a TXQ,
>   and contending for a lock, it's possible that the resulting total
>   throughput could be far less than either source alone would get if it
>   had exclusive use of a queue.
> There don't really seem to be any good answers to this; any CPU in the
>   system can initiate an XDP_REDIRECT at any time and if they can't each
>   get a queue to themselves then I don't see how the arbitration can be
>   performant.  (There is the middle-ground possibility of TXQs shared by
>   multiple XDP CPUs but not shared with the regular stack, in which case
>   if only a subset of CPUs are actually handling RX on the device(s) with
>   an XDP_REDIRECTing program it may be possible to avoid contention if
>   the core-to-XDP-TXQ mapping can be carefully configured.)

Yes, I prefer the 'middle-ground' fallback you describe.  XDP gets it's 
own set of TXQ-queues, and when driver detect TXQ's are less than CPUs 
that can redirect packets it uses an ndo_xdp_xmit function that takes a 
(hashed) lock (happens per packet burst (max 16)).

--Jesper