[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB555472BCD12F50E30DCBCCDBEC8B0@AM0PR04MB5554.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:22:56 +0000
From: Madalin-cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@....com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@....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: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org <netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org> On
> Behalf Of Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> 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)
Hi Jesper,
is the split page memory model supported now (with two frames per page)?
Thanks,
Madalin
> 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").
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
> LinkedIn:
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.link
> edin.com%2Fin%2Fbrouer&data=02%7C01%7Cmadalin.bucur%40nxp.com%7C44c593
> 0f8a224fdd063208d66759613b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C63
> 6810030928918215&sdata=PIdwIEvOAPlyWPScMjOdWiauOp2wAI7QXu9FNJ0SHzs%3D&
> amp;reserved=0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists