netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/8] i40e: add support for AF_XDP need

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: <61B6830B-7EBF-4B44-A53C-9F56D5D42426@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 08:42:55 -0700
From:   "Jonathan Lemon" <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
To:     "Magnus Karlsson" <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>
Cc:     "Magnus Karlsson" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        "Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@...nel.org>,
        "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "Network Development" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <brouer@...hat.com>,
        "Maxim Mikityanskiy" <maximmi@...lanox.com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, bruce.richardson@...el.com,
        ciara.loftus@...el.com,
        "Jakub Kicinski" <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        "Ye Xiaolong" <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
        "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@...el.com>,
        "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        "Kevin Laatz" <kevin.laatz@...el.com>, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org,
        Kiran <kiran.patil@...el.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
        "Fijalkowski, Maciej" <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        "Maciej Fijalkowski" <maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com>,
        intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/8] i40e: add support for AF_XDP need_wakeup
 feature



On 14 Aug 2019, at 7:59, Magnus Karlsson wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:48 PM Jonathan Lemon 
> <jonathan.lemon@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14 Aug 2019, at 0:27, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
>>
>>> This patch adds support for the need_wakeup feature of AF_XDP. If 
>>> the
>>> application has told the kernel that it might sleep using the new 
>>> bind
>>> flag XDP_USE_NEED_WAKEUP, the driver will then set this flag if it 
>>> has
>>> no more buffers on the NIC Rx ring and yield to the application. For
>>> Tx, it will set the flag if it has no outstanding Tx completion
>>> interrupts and return to the application.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_xsk.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_xsk.c
>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_xsk.c
>>> index d0ff5d8..42c9012 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_xsk.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_xsk.c
>>> @@ -626,6 +626,15 @@ int i40e_clean_rx_irq_zc(struct i40e_ring
>>> *rx_ring, int budget)
>>>
>>>       i40e_finalize_xdp_rx(rx_ring, xdp_xmit);
>>>       i40e_update_rx_stats(rx_ring, total_rx_bytes, 
>>> total_rx_packets);
>>> +
>>> +     if (xsk_umem_uses_need_wakeup(rx_ring->xsk_umem)) {
>>> +             if (failure || rx_ring->next_to_clean == 
>>> rx_ring->next_to_use)
>>> +                     xsk_set_rx_need_wakeup(rx_ring->xsk_umem);
>>> +             else
>>> +                     xsk_clear_rx_need_wakeup(rx_ring->xsk_umem);
>>> +
>>> +             return (int)total_rx_packets;
>>> +     }
>>>       return failure ? budget : (int)total_rx_packets;
>>
>> Can you elaborate why we're not returning the total budget on failure
>> for the wakeup case?
>
> In the non need_wakeup case (the old behavior), when allocation fails
> from the fill queue we want to retry right away basically busy
> spinning on the fill queue until we find at least one entry and then
> go on processing packets. Works well when the app and the driver are
> on different cores, but a lousy strategy when they execute on the same
> core. That is why in the need_wakeup feature case, we do not return
> the total budget if there is a failure. We will just come back at a
> later point in time from a syscall since the need_wakeup flag will
> have been set and check the fill queue again. We do not want a
> busy-spinning behavior in this case.

That makes sense.  Thanks for all the work on this, Magnus!
-- 
Jonathan