netdev - Re: [net-next 1/6] net/dcb: Add dcbnl buffer attribute

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: <20180523131344.27e17299@cakuba>
Date:   Wed, 23 May 2018 13:13:44 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Huy Nguyen <huyn@...lanox.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 1/6] net/dcb: Add dcbnl buffer attribute

On Wed, 23 May 2018 06:52:33 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 05/23/2018 02:43 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Tue, May 22, 2018 at 07:20:26AM CEST, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com wrote:  
> >> On Mon, 21 May 2018 14:04:57 -0700, Saeed Mahameed wrote:  
> >>> From: Huy Nguyen <huyn@...lanox.com>
> >>>
> >>> In this patch, we add dcbnl buffer attribute to allow user
> >>> change the NIC's buffer configuration such as priority
> >>> to buffer mapping and buffer size of individual buffer.
> >>>
> >>> This attribute combined with pfc attribute allows advance user to
> >>> fine tune the qos setting for specific priority queue. For example,
> >>> user can give dedicated buffer for one or more prirorities or user
> >>> can give large buffer to certain priorities.
> >>>
> >>> We present an use case scenario where dcbnl buffer attribute configured
> >>> by advance user helps reduce the latency of messages of different sizes.
> >>>
> >>> Scenarios description:
> >>> On ConnectX-5, we run latency sensitive traffic with
> >>> small/medium message sizes ranging from 64B to 256KB and bandwidth sensitive
> >>> traffic with large messages sizes 512KB and 1MB. We group small, medium,
> >>> and large message sizes to their own pfc enables priorities as follow.
> >>>   Priorities 1 & 2 (64B, 256B and 1KB)
> >>>   Priorities 3 & 4 (4KB, 8KB, 16KB, 64KB, 128KB and 256KB)
> >>>   Priorities 5 & 6 (512KB and 1MB)
> >>>
> >>> By default, ConnectX-5 maps all pfc enabled priorities to a single
> >>> lossless fixed buffer size of 50% of total available buffer space. The
> >>> other 50% is assigned to lossy buffer. Using dcbnl buffer attribute,
> >>> we create three equal size lossless buffers. Each buffer has 25% of total
> >>> available buffer space. Thus, the lossy buffer size reduces to 25%. Priority
> >>> to lossless  buffer mappings are set as follow.
> >>>   Priorities 1 & 2 on lossless buffer #1
> >>>   Priorities 3 & 4 on lossless buffer #2
> >>>   Priorities 5 & 6 on lossless buffer #3
> >>>
> >>> We observe improvements in latency for small and medium message sizes
> >>> as follows. Please note that the large message sizes bandwidth performance is
> >>> reduced but the total bandwidth remains the same.
> >>>   256B message size (42 % latency reduction)
> >>>   4K message size (21% latency reduction)
> >>>   64K message size (16% latency reduction)
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Huy Nguyen <huyn@...lanox.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>  
> >>
> >> On a cursory look this bares a lot of resemblance to devlink shared
> >> buffer configuration ABI.  Did you look into using that?  
> >>
> >> Just to be clear devlink shared buffer ABIs don't require representors
> >> and "switchdev mode".  
> > 
> > If the CX5 buffer they are trying to utilize here is per port and not a
> > shared one, it would seem ok for me to not have it in "devlink sb".

What I meant is that it may be shared between VFs and PF contexts.  But
if it's purely ingress per-prio FIFO without any advanced configuration
capabilities, then perhaps this API is a better match.

> +1 I think its probably reasonable to let devlink manage the global
> (device layer) buffers and then have dcbnl partition the buffer up
> further per netdev. Notice there is already a partitioning of the
> buffers happening when DCB is enabled and/or parameters are changed.
> So giving explicit control over this seems OK to me.

Okay, thanks for the discussion! :)

> It would be nice though if the API gave us some hint on max/min/stride
> of allowed values. Could the get API return these along with current
> value? Presumably the allowed max size could change with devlink
> buffer changes in how the global buffer is divided up as well.
> 
> The argument against allowing this API is it doesn't have anything to
> do with the 802.1Q standard, but that is fine IMO.