linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] ixgbe: let the xdpdrv work with more than 64 cpus

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]

Message-ID: <d15a1f43-3fea-b798-7848-61faf3ca1e8c@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Aug 2021 08:23:46 -0700
From:   Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:     <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>, <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <ast@...nel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <hawk@...nel.org>,
        <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <andrii@...nel.org>, <kafai@...com>,
        <songliubraving@...com>, <yhs@...com>, <kpsingh@...nel.org>
CC:     <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Xing <xingwanli@...ishou.com>,
        Shujin Li <lishujin@...ishou.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ixgbe: let the xdpdrv work with more than 64 cpus

On 8/26/2021 7:16 AM, kerneljasonxing@...il.com wrote:
> From: Jason Xing <xingwanli@...ishou.com>
> 
> Originally, ixgbe driver doesn't allow the mounting of xdpdrv if the
> server is equipped with more than 64 cpus online. So it turns out that
> the loading of xdpdrv causes the "NOMEM" failure.
> 
> Actually, we can adjust the algorithm and then make it work through
> mapping the current cpu to some xdp ring with the protect of @tx_lock.

Thank you very much for working on this!

you should put your sign off block here, and then end with a triple-dash
"---"

then have your vN: updates below that, so they will be dropped from
final git apply. It's ok to have more than one triple-dash.

> 
> v4:
> - Update the wrong commit messages. (Jason)
> 
> v3:
> - Change nr_cpu_ids to num_online_cpus() (Maciej)
> - Rename MAX_XDP_QUEUES to IXGBE_MAX_XDP_QS (Maciej)
> - Rename ixgbe_determine_xdp_cpu() to ixgbe_determine_xdp_q_idx() (Maciej)
> - Wrap ixgbe_xdp_ring_update_tail() with lock into one function (Maciej)
> 
> v2:
> - Adjust cpu id in ixgbe_xdp_xmit(). (Jesper)
> - Add a fallback path. (Maciej)
> - Adjust other parts related to xdp ring.
> 
> Fixes: 33fdc82f08 ("ixgbe: add support for XDP_TX action")
> Co-developed-by: Shujin Li <lishujin@...ishou.com>
> Signed-off-by: Shujin Li <lishujin@...ishou.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <xingwanli@...ishou.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe.h           | 15 ++++-
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_lib.c       |  9 ++-
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c      | 64 ++++++++++++++++------
>  .../net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_txrx_common.h   |  1 +
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_xsk.c       |  9 +--
>  5 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

...

> @@ -8539,21 +8539,32 @@ static u16 ixgbe_select_queue(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
>  int ixgbe_xmit_xdp_ring(struct ixgbe_adapter *adapter,
>  			struct xdp_frame *xdpf)
>  {
> -	struct ixgbe_ring *ring = adapter->xdp_ring[smp_processor_id()];
>  	struct ixgbe_tx_buffer *tx_buffer;
>  	union ixgbe_adv_tx_desc *tx_desc;
> +	struct ixgbe_ring *ring;
>  	u32 len, cmd_type;
>  	dma_addr_t dma;
> +	int index, ret;
>  	u16 i;
>  
>  	len = xdpf->len;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(!ixgbe_desc_unused(ring)))
> -		return IXGBE_XDP_CONSUMED;
> +	index = ixgbe_determine_xdp_q_idx(smp_processor_id());
> +	ring = adapter->xdp_ring[index];
> +
> +	if (static_branch_unlikely(&ixgbe_xdp_locking_key))
> +		spin_lock(&ring->tx_lock);
> +
> +	if (unlikely(!ixgbe_desc_unused(ring))) {
> +		ret = IXGBE_XDP_CONSUMED;
> +		goto out;
> +	}

This static key stuff is tricky code, but I guess if it works, then it's
better than nothing.

As Maciej also commented, I'd like to see some before/after numbers for
some of the xdp sample programs to make sure this doesn't cause a huge
regression on the xdp transmit path. A small regression would be ok,
since this *is* adding overhead.

Jesse