netdev - Re: consistency for statistics with XDP mode

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: <20181130152857-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:30:37 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "toke@...e.dk" <toke@...e.dk>,
        "dsahern@...il.com" <dsahern@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pstaszewski@...are.pl" <pstaszewski@...are.pl>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "brouer@...hat.com" <brouer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: consistency for statistics with XDP mode

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 08:10:58PM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-11-22 at 18:00 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> writes:
> > 
> > > On 11/22/18 1:26 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > > > Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > I'd say it sounds reasonable to include XDP in the normal
> > > > > > > traffic
> > > > > > > counters, but having the detailed XDP-specific counters is
> > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > as well... So can't we do both (for all drivers)?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What are you thinking ? 
> > > > > reporting XDP_DROP in interface dropped counter ?
> > > > > and XDP_TX/REDIRECT in the TX counter ?
> > > > > XDP_ABORTED in the  err/drop counter ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > how about having a special XDP command in the .ndo_bpf that
> > > > > would query
> > > > > the standardized XDP stats ?
> > > > the XDP-specific stats are useful to have separately as well :)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I would like to see basic packets, bytes, and dropped counters
> > > tracked
> > > for Rx and Tx via the standard netdev counters for all devices. 
> 
> The problem of reporting XDP_DROP in the netedev drop counter is that
> they don't fit this counter description : "no space in linux buffers"
> and it will be hard for the user to determine whether these drops are
> coming from XDP or because no buffer is available, which will make it
> impossible to estimate packet rate performance without looking at
> ethtool stats.
> And reporting XDP_DROP in the netdev rx packets counter is somehow
> misleading.. since those packets never made it out of this driver.. 
> 
> 
> And reporting XDP_DROP in the netdev rx packets counter is somehow
> misleading.. since those packets never made it out of this driver..

I think I agree. XDP needs minimal overhead - if user wants to do
counters then user can via maps. And in a sense XDP dropping packet
is much like e.g. TCP dropping packet - it is not counted
against the driver since it's not driver's fault.


> > > for ease in accounting as well as speed and simplicity for bumping
> > > counters for virtual devices from bpf helpers.
> > > 
> > > From there, the XDP ones can be in the driver private stats as they
> > > are
> > > currently but with some consistency across drivers for redirects,
> > > drops,
> > > any thing else.
> > > 
> > > So not a radical departure from where we are today, just getting
> > > the
> > > agreement for consistency and driver owners to make the changes.
> > 
> > Sounds good to me :)
> > 
> > -Toke