[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190613164514.00002f66@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:45:37 +0200
From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com>
To: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 07/17] libbpf: Support drivers with
non-combined channels
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:01:39 +0000
Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com> wrote:
> On 2019-06-12 23:23, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:56:48 +0000, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
> >> Currently, libbpf uses the number of combined channels as the maximum
> >> queue number. However, the kernel has a different limitation:
> >>
> >> - xdp_reg_umem_at_qid() allows up to max(RX queues, TX queues).
> >>
> >> - ethtool_set_channels() checks for UMEMs in queues up to
> >> combined_count + max(rx_count, tx_count).
> >>
> >> libbpf shouldn't limit applications to a lower max queue number. Account
> >> for non-combined RX and TX channels when calculating the max queue
> >> number. Use the same formula that is used in ethtool.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
> >> Acked-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
> >
> > I don't think this is correct. max_tx tells you how many TX channels
> > there can be, you can't add that to combined. Correct calculations is:
> >
> > max_num_chans = max(max_combined, max(max_rx, max_tx))
>
> First of all, I'm aligning with the formula in the kernel, which is:
>
> curr.combined_count + max(curr.rx_count, curr.tx_count);
>
> (see net/core/ethtool.c, ethtool_set_channels()).
>
> The formula in libbpf should match it.
>
> Second, the existing drivers have either combined channels or separate
> rx and tx channels. So, for the first kind of drivers, max_tx doesn't
> tell how many TX channels there can be, it just says 0, and max_combined
> tells how many TX and RX channels are supported. As max_tx doesn't
> include max_combined (and vice versa), we should add them up.
>
> >> tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c | 6 +++---
> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> >> index bf15a80a37c2..86107857e1f0 100644
> >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> >> @@ -334,13 +334,13 @@ static int xsk_get_max_queues(struct xsk_socket *xsk)
> >> goto out;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - if (channels.max_combined == 0 || errno == EOPNOTSUPP)
> >> + ret = channels.max_combined + max(channels.max_rx, channels.max_tx);
So in case of 32 HW queues you'd like to get 64 entries in xskmap? Do you still
have a need for attaching the xsksocks to the RSS queues? I thought you want
them to be separated. So if I'm reading this right, [0, 31] xskmap entries
would be unused for the most of the time, no?
> >> +
> >> + if (ret == 0 || errno == EOPNOTSUPP)
> >> /* If the device says it has no channels, then all traffic
> >> * is sent to a single stream, so max queues = 1.
> >> */
> >> ret = 1;
> >> - else
> >> - ret = channels.max_combined;
> >>
> >> out:
> >> close(fd);
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists