linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: sched: make skip

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: <Zc9bw8eHa5z_xh6Y@nanopsycho>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:57:39 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llu@...erby.dk,
	Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>,
	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: sched: make skip_sw actually skip
 software

Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 06:49:05PM CET, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:06 AM Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net> wrote:
>>
>> TC filters come in 3 variants:
>> - no flag (no opinion, process wherever possible)
>> - skip_hw (do not process filter by hardware)
>> - skip_sw (do not process filter by software)
>>
>> However skip_sw is implemented so that the skip_sw
>> flag can first be checked, after it has been matched.
>>
>> IMHO it's common when using skip_sw, to use it on all rules.
>>
>> So if all filters in a block is skip_sw filters, then
>> we can bail early, we can thus avoid having to match
>> the filters, just to check for the skip_sw flag.
>>
>>  +----------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
>>  | Test description           | Pre    | Post   | Rel.   |
>>  |                            | kpps   | kpps   | chg.   |
>>  +----------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
>>  | basic forwarding + notrack | 1264.9 | 1277.7 |  1.01x |
>>  | switch to eswitch mode     | 1067.1 | 1071.0 |  1.00x |
>>  | add ingress qdisc          | 1056.0 | 1059.1 |  1.00x |
>>  +----------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
>>  | 1 non-matching rule        |  927.9 | 1057.1 |  1.14x |
>>  | 10 non-matching rules      |  495.8 | 1055.6 |  2.13x |
>>  | 25 non-matching rules      |  280.6 | 1053.5 |  3.75x |
>>  | 50 non-matching rules      |  162.0 | 1055.7 |  6.52x |
>>  | 100 non-matching rules     |   87.7 | 1019.0 | 11.62x |
>>  +----------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
>>
>> perf top (100 n-m skip_sw rules - pre patch):
>>   25.57%  [kernel]  [k] __skb_flow_dissect
>>   20.77%  [kernel]  [k] rhashtable_jhash2
>>   14.26%  [kernel]  [k] fl_classify
>>   13.28%  [kernel]  [k] fl_mask_lookup
>>    6.38%  [kernel]  [k] memset_orig
>>    3.22%  [kernel]  [k] tcf_classify
>>
>> perf top (100 n-m skip_sw rules - post patch):
>>    4.28%  [kernel]  [k] __dev_queue_xmit
>>    3.80%  [kernel]  [k] check_preemption_disabled
>>    3.68%  [kernel]  [k] nft_do_chain
>>    3.08%  [kernel]  [k] __netif_receive_skb_core.constprop.0
>>    2.59%  [kernel]  [k] mlx5e_xmit
>>    2.48%  [kernel]  [k] mlx5e_skb_from_cqe_mpwrq_nonlinear
>>
>
>The concept makes sense - but i am wondering when you have a mix of
>skip_sw and skip_hw if it makes more sense to just avoid looking up
>skip_sw at all in the s/w datapath? Potentially by separating the
>hashes for skip_sw/hw. I know it's a deeper surgery - but would be

Yeah, there could be 2 hashes: skip_sw/rest
rest is the only one that needs to be looked-up in kernel datapath.
skip_sw is just for control path.

But is it worth the efford? I mean, since now, nobody seemed to care. If
this patchset solves the problem for this usecase, I think it is enough.

In that case, I'm fine with this patch:

Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>



>more general purpose....unless i am missing something
>
>> Test setup:
>>  DUT: Intel Xeon D-1518 (2.20GHz) w/ Nvidia/Mellanox ConnectX-6 Dx 2x100G
>>  Data rate measured on switch (Extreme X690), and DUT connected as
>>  a router on a stick, with pktgen and pktsink as VLANs.
>>  Pktgen was in range 12.79 - 12.95 Mpps across all tests.
>>
>
>Hrm. Those are "tiny" numbers (25G @64B is about 3x that). What are
>the packet sizes?
>Perhaps the traffic generator is a limitation here?
>Also feels like you are doing exact matches? A sample flower rule
>would have helped.
>
>cheers,
>jamal
>> Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>
>> ---
>>  include/net/pkt_cls.h | 5 +++++
>>  net/core/dev.c        | 3 +++
>>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/pkt_cls.h b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>> index a4ee43f493bb..a065da4df7ff 100644
>> --- a/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>> +++ b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>> @@ -74,6 +74,11 @@ static inline bool tcf_block_non_null_shared(struct tcf_block *block)
>>         return block && block->index;
>>  }
>>
>> +static inline bool tcf_block_has_skip_sw_only(struct tcf_block *block)
>> +{
>> +       return block && atomic_read(&block->filtercnt) == atomic_read(&block->skipswcnt);
>> +}
>> +
>>  static inline struct Qdisc *tcf_block_q(struct tcf_block *block)
>>  {
>>         WARN_ON(tcf_block_shared(block));
>> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
>> index d8dd293a7a27..7cd014e5066e 100644
>> --- a/net/core/dev.c
>> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
>> @@ -3910,6 +3910,9 @@ static int tc_run(struct tcx_entry *entry, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>         if (!miniq)
>>                 return ret;
>>
>> +       if (tcf_block_has_skip_sw_only(miniq->block))
>> +               return ret;
>> +
>>         tc_skb_cb(skb)->mru = 0;
>>         tc_skb_cb(skb)->post_ct = false;
>>         tcf_set_drop_reason(skb, *drop_reason);
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>>