Message-ID: <CAKgT0UcNzMRj=OyDYwsijPKTfbEmCDgKq08Fn7+vrPo9RwUJ0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:06:48 -0700
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Shrijeet Mukherjee <shrijeet@...il.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shrijeet Mukherjee <shm@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC WIP] Patch for XDP support for virtio_net

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer
<brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
>> From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:56:35 -0700
>>
>> > On 16-10-27 07:10 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> >> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
>> >> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:43:59 -0700
>> >>
>> >>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 6:35 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> >>>> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
>> >>>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 01:25:48 +0300
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:42:18PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> >>>>>> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
>> >>>>>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:30:35 +0300
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Something I'd like to understand is how does XDP address the
>> >>>>>>> problem that 100Byte packets are consuming 4K of memory now.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Via page pools.  We're going to make a generic one, but right now
>> >>>>>> each and every driver implements a quick list of pages to allocate
>> >>>>>> from (and thus avoid the DMA man/unmap overhead, etc.)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So to clarify, ATM virtio doesn't attempt to avoid dma map/unmap
>> >>>>> so there should be no issue with that even when using sub/page
>> >>>>> regions, assuming DMA APIs support sub-page map/unmap correctly.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That's not what I said.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The page pools are meant to address the performance degradation from
>> >>>> going to having one packet per page for the sake of XDP's
>> >>>> requirements.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You still need to have one packet per page for correct XDP operation
>> >>>> whether you do page pools or not, and whether you have DMA mapping
>> >>>> (or it's equivalent virutalization operation) or not.
>> >>>
>> >>> Maybe I am missing something here, but why do you need to limit things
>> >>> to one packet per page for correct XDP operation?  Most of the drivers
>> >>> out there now are usually storing something closer to at least 2
>> >>> packets per page, and with the DMA API fixes I am working on there
>> >>> should be no issue with changing the contents inside those pages since
>> >>> we won't invalidate or overwrite the data after the DMA buffer has
>> >>> been synchronized for use by the CPU.
>> >>
>> >> Because with SKB's you can share the page with other packets.
>> >>
>> >> With XDP you simply cannot.
>> >>
>> >> It's software semantics that are the issue.  SKB frag list pages
>> >> are read only, XDP packets are writable.
>> >>
>> >> This has nothing to do with "writability" of the pages wrt. DMA
>> >> mapping or cpu mappings.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Sorry I'm not seeing it either. The current xdp_buff is defined
>> > by,
>> >
>> >   struct xdp_buff {
>> >     void *data;
>> >     void *data_end;
>> >   };
>> >
>> > The verifier has an xdp_is_valid_access() check to ensure we don't go
>> > past data_end. The page for now at least never leaves the driver. For
>> > the work to get xmit to other devices working I'm still not sure I see
>> > any issue.
>>
>> I guess I can say that the packets must be "writable" until I'm blue
>> in the face but I'll say it again, semantically writable pages are a
>> requirement.  And if multiple packets share a page this requirement
>> is not satisfied.
>>
>> Also, we want to do several things in the future:
>>
>> 1) Allow push/pop of headers via eBPF code, which needs we need
>>    headroom.
>>
>> 2) Transparently zero-copy pass packets into userspace, basically
>>    the user will have a semi-permanently mapped ring of all the
>>    packet pages sitting in the RX queue of the device and the
>>    page pool associated with it.  This way we avoid all of the
>>    TLB flush/map overhead for the user's mapping of the packets
>>    just as we avoid the DMA map/unmap overhead.
>>
>> And that's just the beginninng.
>>
>> I'm sure others can come up with more reasons why we have this
>> requirement.
>
> I've tried to update the XDP documentation about the "Page per packet"
> requirement[1], fell free to correct below text:
>
> Page per packet
> ===============
>
> On RX many NIC drivers splitup a memory page, to share it for multiple
> packets, in-order to conserve memory.  Doing so complicates handling
> and accounting of these memory pages, which affects performance.
> Particularly the extra atomic refcnt handling needed for the page can
> hurt performance.

The atomic refcnt handling isn't a big deal.  It is easily worked
around by doing bulk updates.  The allocating and freeing of pages on
the other hand is quite expensive by comparison.

> XDP defines upfront a memory model where there is only one packet per
> page.  This simplifies page handling and open up for future
> extensions.

This is blatantly wrong.  It complicates page handling especially
since you are implying you aren't using the page count which implies a
new memory model like SLUB but not SLUB and hopefully including DMA
pools of some sort.  The fact is the page count tricks are much
cheaper than having to come up with your own page allocator.  In
addition having to share these with the stack means the network stack
and file system has to be updated to handle the special pages you are
sending that aren't using the page count.

> This requirement also (upfront) result in choosing not to support
> things like, jumpo-frames, LRO and generally packets split over
> multiple pages.

Same here.  Page per packet is only limiting if the final frame size
is larger than a page.  So for example on a 4K page I could setup an
82599 to support doing hardware LRO into a single 3K block which would
give you 2 frames per packet.  In the case of pages larger than 4k it
wouldn't be hard to support jumbo frames.  Where it gets messier is
the headroom requirements since I have yet to hear how that is going
to be communicated to the XPS programs.

> In the future, this strict memory model might be relaxed, but for now
> it is a strict requirement.  With a more flexible
> :ref:`ref_prog_negotiation` is might be possible to negotiate another
> memory model. Given some specific XDP use-case might not require this
> strict memory model.

Honestly, I think making this a hard requirement is going to hurt
overall performance for XDP.  I get that it is needed if you are
planning to support a use case where userspace is somehow sharing
buffers with the ring but I really think that it is getting the cart
ahead of the horse since in that case you should have a ring that is
completely reserved for that userspace application anyway and we
haven't figured out a good way to address that.  All of this page per
packet stuff just seems like premature optimization for a use case
that doesn't yet exist.

In the cases where packets are just getting sent into the network
stack with XDP as a bump in the wire I don't see the point in having
the entire page reserved for a single packet.  It seems like a fast
way to start leaking memory and eating up resources since every frame
going into the stack is going to end up with a truesize of over 4K(64K
in some cases) unless we introduce some sort of copy-break.

Anyway that is my $.02 on all this.

- Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists