[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84ae17c1-f34b-610d-a5a1-ba8dce1732f3@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:29:34 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/11] tuntap: split out XDP logic
On 2018年09月07日 01:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 12:05:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> This patch split out XDP logic into a single function. This make it to
>> be reused by XDP batching path in the following patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/tun.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> index 389aa0727cc6..21b125020b3b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> @@ -1635,6 +1635,44 @@ static bool tun_can_build_skb(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file *tfile,
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>> +static u32 tun_do_xdp(struct tun_struct *tun,
>> + struct tun_file *tfile,
>> + struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog,
>> + struct xdp_buff *xdp,
>> + int *err)
>> +{
>> + u32 act = bpf_prog_run_xdp(xdp_prog, xdp);
>> +
>> + switch (act) {
>> + case XDP_REDIRECT:
>> + *err = xdp_do_redirect(tun->dev, xdp, xdp_prog);
>> + xdp_do_flush_map();
>> + if (*err)
>> + break;
>> + goto out;
>> + case XDP_TX:
>> + *err = tun_xdp_tx(tun->dev, xdp);
>> + if (*err < 0)
>> + break;
>> + *err = 0;
>> + goto out;
>> + case XDP_PASS:
>> + goto out;
> Do we need goto? why not just return?
I don't see any difference.
>
>> + default:
>> + bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(act);
>> + /* fall through */
>> + case XDP_ABORTED:
>> + trace_xdp_exception(tun->dev, xdp_prog, act);
>> + /* fall through */
>> + case XDP_DROP:
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + put_page(virt_to_head_page(xdp->data_hard_start));
> put here because caller does get_page :( Not pretty.
> I'd move this out to the caller.
Then we need a switch in the caller, not sure it's better.
>
>> +out:
>> + return act;
> How about combining err and act? err is < 0 XDP_PASS is > 0.
> No need for pointers then.
Ok.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> static struct sk_buff *tun_build_skb(struct tun_struct *tun,
>> struct tun_file *tfile,
>> struct iov_iter *from,
>> @@ -1645,10 +1683,10 @@ static struct sk_buff *tun_build_skb(struct tun_struct *tun,
>> struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
>> struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog;
>> int buflen = SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info));
>> - unsigned int delta = 0;
>> char *buf;
>> size_t copied;
>> - int err, pad = TUN_RX_PAD;
>> + int pad = TUN_RX_PAD;
>> + int err = 0;
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> xdp_prog = rcu_dereference(tun->xdp_prog);
>> @@ -1685,9 +1723,8 @@ static struct sk_buff *tun_build_skb(struct tun_struct *tun,
>> local_bh_disable();
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> xdp_prog = rcu_dereference(tun->xdp_prog);
>> - if (xdp_prog && !*skb_xdp) {
>> + if (xdp_prog) {
>> struct xdp_buff xdp;
>> - void *orig_data;
>> u32 act;
>>
>> xdp.data_hard_start = buf;
>> @@ -1695,33 +1732,14 @@ static struct sk_buff *tun_build_skb(struct tun_struct *tun,
>> xdp_set_data_meta_invalid(&xdp);
>> xdp.data_end = xdp.data + len;
>> xdp.rxq = &tfile->xdp_rxq;
>> - orig_data = xdp.data;
>> - act = bpf_prog_run_xdp(xdp_prog, &xdp);
>> -
>> - switch (act) {
>> - case XDP_REDIRECT:
>> - err = xdp_do_redirect(tun->dev, &xdp, xdp_prog);
>> - xdp_do_flush_map();
>> - if (err)
>> - goto err_xdp;
>> - goto out;
>> - case XDP_TX:
>> - if (tun_xdp_tx(tun->dev, &xdp) < 0)
>> - goto err_xdp;
>> - goto out;
>> - case XDP_PASS:
>> - delta = orig_data - xdp.data;
>> - len = xdp.data_end - xdp.data;
>> - break;
>> - default:
>> - bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(act);
>> - /* fall through */
>> - case XDP_ABORTED:
>> - trace_xdp_exception(tun->dev, xdp_prog, act);
>> - /* fall through */
>> - case XDP_DROP:
>> + act = tun_do_xdp(tun, tfile, xdp_prog, &xdp, &err);
>> + if (err)
>> goto err_xdp;
>> - }
>> + if (act != XDP_PASS)
>> + goto out;
> likely?
It depends on the XDP program, so I tend not to use it.
>
>> +
>> + pad = xdp.data - xdp.data_hard_start;
>> + len = xdp.data_end - xdp.data;
>> }
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> local_bh_enable();
>> @@ -1729,18 +1747,18 @@ static struct sk_buff *tun_build_skb(struct tun_struct *tun,
>> build:
>> skb = build_skb(buf, buflen);
>> if (!skb) {
>> + put_page(alloc_frag->page);
>> skb = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> - skb_reserve(skb, pad - delta);
>> + skb_reserve(skb, pad);
>> skb_put(skb, len);
>>
>> return skb;
>>
>> err_xdp:
>> - alloc_frag->offset -= buflen;
>> - put_page(alloc_frag->page);
>> + this_cpu_inc(tun->pcpu_stats->rx_dropped);
>
> This fixes bug in previous patch which dropped it. OK :)
Yes, but let me move this to the buggy patch.
Thanks
>> out:
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> local_bh_enable();
>> --
>> 2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists