netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/16] AF_XDP infrastructure improvements and mlx5e support

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]

Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 12:52:03 -0700
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
To:     Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
Cc:     Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.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>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/16] AF_XDP infrastructure improvements and
 mlx5e support

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 2:13 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 14:00, Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com> wrote:
> >
> > This series contains improvements to the AF_XDP kernel infrastructure
> > and AF_XDP support in mlx5e. The infrastructure improvements are
> > required for mlx5e, but also some of them benefit to all drivers, and
> > some can be useful for other drivers that want to implement AF_XDP.
> >
> > The performance testing was performed on a machine with the following
> > configuration:
> >
> > - 24 cores of Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 @ 2.40 GHz
> > - Mellanox ConnectX-5 Ex with 100 Gbit/s link
> >
> > The results with retpoline disabled, single stream:
> >
> > txonly: 33.3 Mpps (21.5 Mpps with queue and app pinned to the same CPU)
> > rxdrop: 12.2 Mpps
> > l2fwd: 9.4 Mpps
> >
> > The results with retpoline enabled, single stream:
> >
> > txonly: 21.3 Mpps (14.1 Mpps with queue and app pinned to the same CPU)
> > rxdrop: 9.9 Mpps
> > l2fwd: 6.8 Mpps
> >
> > v2 changes:
> >
> > Added patches for mlx5e and addressed the comments for v1. Rebased for
> > bpf-next.
> >
> > v3 changes:
> >
> > Rebased for the newer bpf-next, resolved conflicts in libbpf. Addressed
> > Björn's comments for coding style. Fixed a bug in error handling flow in
> > mlx5e_open_xsk.
> >
> > v4 changes:
> >
> > UAPI is not changed, XSK RX queues are exposed to the kernel. The lower
> > half of the available amount of RX queues are regular queues, and the
> > upper half are XSK RX queues. The patch "xsk: Extend channels to support
> > combined XSK/non-XSK traffic" was dropped. The final patch was reworked
> > accordingly.
> >
> > Added "net/mlx5e: Attach/detach XDP program safely", as the changes
> > introduced in the XSK patch base on the stuff from this one.
> >
> > Added "libbpf: Support drivers with non-combined channels", which aligns
> > the condition in libbpf with the condition in the kernel.
> >
> > Rebased over the newer bpf-next.
> >
> > v5 changes:
> >
> > In v4, ethtool reports the number of channels as 'combined' and the
> > number of XSK RX queues as 'rx' for mlx5e. It was changed, so that 'rx'
> > is 0, and 'combined' reports the double amount of channels if there is
> > an active UMEM - to make libbpf happy.
> >
> > The patch for libbpf was dropped. Although it's still useful and fixes
> > things, it raises some disagreement, so I'm dropping it - it's no longer
> > useful for mlx5e anymore after the change above.
> >
>
> Just a heads-up: There are some checkpatch warnings (>80 chars/line)

Thanks Bjorn for your comment, in mlx5 we allow up to 95 chars per line,
otherwise it is going to be an ugly zigzags.

> for the mlnx5 driver parts, and the series didn't apply cleanly on
> bpf-next for me.
>
> I haven't been able to test the mlnx5 parts.
>
> Parts of the series are unrelated/orthogonal, and could be submitted
> as separate series, e.g. patches {1,7} and patches {3,4}. No blockers
> for me, though.
>
> Thanks for the hard work!
>
> For the series:
> Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>