[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56FC0723.4040003@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:04:35 -0700
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: core: Pass XPS select queue decision to
skb_tx_hash
On 16-03-30 06:23 AM, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>
>
> On 3/30/2016 3:18 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
>> I would prefer to not have another strange quirk users have to
>> remember in order to do tx classification. So with this change
>> depending on the driver the queue selection precedence changes.
> This change doesn't depend on the driver it affects all drivers that
> implement the select queue ndo and use the default fallback
> "pick_tx_queue" which this patch came to fix, or any driver that doesn't
> implement the ndo (the fallback is the default in this case).
Yep, sorry I read the patch to quickly and without coffee thanks!
>> In short I agree with the problem statement but think we can find a
>> better solution. One idea that comes to mind is we can have a tc
>> action to force the queue selection? Now that we have the egress tc
>> hook it would probably be fairly cheap to implement and if users want
>> this behavior they can ask for it explicitly. If your thinking about
>> tc stuff we could fix the tooling to set this action when ever dcb is
>> turned on or hardware rate limiting is enabled, etc. And even if we
>> wanted we could have the driver add the rule in the cases where
>> firmware protocols are configuring the QOS/etc.
> Why would you ask for a bug fix explicitly ? IMHO this how I expect the
> pick _tx_queue routine to behave, why would I disable XPS in order for
> select queue to choose according TC QoS ?
> as this patch suggests we can benefit from both without any additional
> tooling !
>
OK, so let me see if I get this right now. This was the precedence
before the patch in the normal no select queue case,
(1) socket mapping sk_tx_queue_mapping iff !ooo_okay
(2) xps
(3) skb->queue_mapping
(4) qoffset/qcount (hash over tc queues)
(5) hash over num_tx_queues
With this patch the precedence is a bit changed because
skb_tx_hash is always called.
(1) socket mapping sk_tx_queue_mapping iff !ooo_okay
(2) skb->queue_mapping
(3) qoffset/qcount
(hash over tc queues if xps choice is > qcount)
(4) xps
(5) hash over num_tx_queues
Sound right? Nice thing about this with correct configuration
of tc with qcount = xps_queues it sort of works as at least
I expect it to. I think the question is are people OK with
letting skb->queue_mapping take precedence. I am at least
because it makes the skb edit queue_mapping action from tc
easier to use.
And just a comment on the code why not just move get_xps_queue
into skb_tx_hash at this point if its always being called as the
"hint". Then we avoid calling it in the case queue_mapping is
set.
>>> if (skb_vlan_tag_present(skb))
>>> up = skb_vlan_tag_get(skb) >> VLAN_PRIO_SHIFT;
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> index cb0d5d0..ad81ffe 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> @@ -3130,16 +3130,16 @@ static inline int netif_set_xps_queue(struct
>>> net_device *dev,
>>> #endif
>>> u16 __skb_tx_hash(const struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>> - unsigned int num_tx_queues);
>>> + unsigned int num_tx_queues, int txq_hint);
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>> And all this seems like it would only ever be called by drivers select
>> queue routines which I really wish we could kill off one of these days
>> instead of add to. Now if the signal is something higher in the stack
>> and not the driver I think it is OK.
> I agree, drivers shouldn't call this function, the only reason drivers
> call this function is to bypass get_xps_queue
> and after this patch i don't think driver will need to call it, since it
> will be called even if XPS is configured.
>
yep.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists