[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <37371883-cc77-f4a6-c575-1c6939efa439@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 21:11:59 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
BjörnTöpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
magnus.karlsson@...el.com, eugenia@...lanox.com,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, galp@...lanox.com,
Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [bpf-next V2 PATCH 07/15] virtio_net: convert to use generic
xdp_frame and xdp_return_frame API
On 2018年03月09日 17:44, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 16:03:28 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2018年03月08日 21:08, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>> The virtio_net driver assumes XDP frames are always released based on
>>> page refcnt (via put_page). Thus, is only queues the XDP data pointer
>>> address and uses virt_to_head_page() to retrieve struct page.
>>>
>>> Use the XDP return API to get away from such assumptions. Instead
>>> queue an xdp_frame, which allow us to use the xdp_return_frame API,
>>> when releasing the frame.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>> index 23374603e4d9..6c4220450506 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>> @@ -419,30 +419,41 @@ static bool __virtnet_xdp_xmit(struct virtnet_info *vi,
>>> struct xdp_buff *xdp)
>>> {
>>> struct virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf *hdr;
>>> - unsigned int len;
>>> + struct xdp_frame *xdpf, *xdpf_sent;
>>> struct send_queue *sq;
>>> + unsigned int len;
>>> unsigned int qp;
>>> - void *xdp_sent;
>>> int err;
>>>
>>> qp = vi->curr_queue_pairs - vi->xdp_queue_pairs + smp_processor_id();
>>> sq = &vi->sq[qp];
>>>
>>> /* Free up any pending old buffers before queueing new ones. */
>>> - while ((xdp_sent = virtqueue_get_buf(sq->vq, &len)) != NULL) {
>>> - struct page *sent_page = virt_to_head_page(xdp_sent);
>>> + while ((xdpf_sent = virtqueue_get_buf(sq->vq, &len)) != NULL)
>>> + xdp_return_frame(xdpf_sent->data, &xdpf_sent->mem);
>>>
>>> - put_page(sent_page);
>>> - }
>>> + xdpf = convert_to_xdp_frame(xdp);
>>> + if (unlikely(!xdpf))
>>> + return -EOVERFLOW;
>>> +
>>> + /* virtqueue want to use data area in-front of packet */
>>> + if (unlikely(xdpf->metasize > 0))
>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> +
>>> + if (unlikely(xdpf->headroom < vi->hdr_len))
>>> + return -EOVERFLOW;
>> I think this need another independent patch. For now we can simply drop
>> the packet, but we probably need to think more to address it completely,
>> allocate header part either dynamically or statically.
> Okay, so we can followup later if we want to handle this case better
> than drop.
>
>>>
>>> - xdp->data -= vi->hdr_len;
>>> + /* Make room for virtqueue hdr (also change xdpf->headroom?) */
>>> + xdpf->data -= vi->hdr_len;
>>> /* Zero header and leave csum up to XDP layers */
>>> - hdr = xdp->data;
>>> + hdr = xdpf->data;
>>> memset(hdr, 0, vi->hdr_len);
>>> + hdr->hdr.hdr_len = xdpf->len; /* Q: is this needed? */
>> Maybe another patch but not a must, hdr_len is hint for the linear part
>> of skb used in host. Backend implementation may simply ignore this value.
> So, I should leave it out for now?
> Or it is okay to keep it?
>
>
If you stick to it, you can keep it.
>>> + xdpf->len += vi->hdr_len;
>>>
>>> - sg_init_one(sq->sg, xdp->data, xdp->data_end - xdp->data);
>>> + sg_init_one(sq->sg, xdpf->data, xdpf->len);
> When _later_ introducing bulking, can we use something else than
> sg_init_one() to send/queue multiple raw XDP frames for sending?
> (I'm asking as I don't know this "sg_*" API usage)
Looks not, but consider the simplicity of sg_init_one(), I wonder
whether or not we can get any difference if there's such one.
It looks to me the actual issue is virtio API which does not support
bulking. I can try to extend it if it's necessary.
Thanks
>
>>> - err = virtqueue_add_outbuf(sq->vq, sq->sg, 1, xdp->data,
>>> GFP_ATOMIC);
>>> + err = virtqueue_add_outbuf(sq->vq, sq->sg, 1, xdpf,
>>> GFP_ATOMIC); if (unlikely(err))
>>> return false; /* Caller handle free/refcnt */
>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists