[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB49946E77A8D8D3AF083C8E7594890@AM0PR04MB4994.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 10:34:31 +0000
From: Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@....com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
CC: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
"dsahern@...il.com" <dsahern@...il.com>,
Camelia Alexandra Groza <camelia.groza@....com>
Subject: RE: Explaining the XDP page-requirement (Was: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/8]
dpaa2-eth: Introduce XDP support)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 5:31 PM
> To: Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@....com>
> Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> davem@...emloft.net; Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>;
> dsahern@...il.com; Camelia Alexandra Groza <camelia.groza@....com>;
> brouer@...hat.com
> Subject: Explaining the XDP page-requirement (Was: [PATCH v2 net-next
> 0/8] dpaa2-eth: Introduce XDP support)
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 18:07:49 +0000
> Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@....com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot for the info, will look into this. Do you have any
> > pointers as to why the full page restriction exists in the first
> > place? Sorry if it's a dumb question, but I haven't found details on
> > this and I'd really like to understand it.
>
> Hi Ioana,
>
> I promised (offlist) that I would get back to you explaining the XDP
> page-requirement...
>
> There are several reasons for XDP to require frames are backed by a
> page. It started out with a focus on gaining speed via simplicity.
>
> The overall requirement is: XDP frame in physical contigious memory
> - which is a requirement from BPF Direct-Access, for validating correcness.
> - Implying you cannot split packet data over several pages.
>
> An important part of the page-requirement is to allow creating SKB's
> outside the driver code. This happen today in both cpumap and veth
> (when doing XDP_REDIRECT). And we need to control and limit the
> variations, to avoid having to handle all kind of SKB schemes.
> Specifically we need enough tailroom for the skb-shared-info.
>
> In the beginning we had the requirement of: 1-page per XDP frame.
> - Gave us a simplified memory model
> - Allow us to not touch atomic refcnt on page (always 1)
> - Fixed 256 bytes headroom
> - This gave us a lot of tailroom, expanding tail was trivial.
>
> Eventually ixgbe+i40e force us to use a split-page model, allowing two
> frames per page.
> - This started to complicate memory model
> - This unfortunately gave issue of unknown tailroom, which killed the
> tailroom expand option.
> - Changes XDP headroom to be variable (192 or 256 bytes)
>
> E.g. I really want to allow bpf_xdp_adjust_tail() to *expand* the
> frame size, but after allowing the split-page model, we couldn't allow
> this easily. And SKB alloc in cpumap/veth was also complicated by not
> knowing (implicit) xdp_frame "hard-end". (We might have to extend
> xdp_buff with "data_hard_end").
>
Thanks a lot, that's great info, especially for someone who hasn't followed
so closely xdp development from its beginning.
I'll look into updating the dpaa2-eth driver to use one page per frame and
see how that goes.
Thanks,
Ioana
Powered by blists - more mailing lists