[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200518084527.GF102436@dhcp-12-153.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 16:45:27 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>, ast@...nel.org,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv2 bpf-next 1/2] xdp: add a new helper for dev map
multicast support
Hi Toke,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 04:34:49PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Yeah, the new helper is much cleaner!
>
> > To achive this I add a new ex_map for struct bpf_redirect_info.
> > in the helper I set tgt_value to NULL to make a difference with
> > bpf_xdp_redirect_map()
> >
> > We also add a flag *BPF_F_EXCLUDE_INGRESS* incase you don't want to
> > create a exclude map for each interface and just want to exclude the
> > ingress interface.
> >
> > The general data path is kept in net/core/filter.c. The native data
> > path is in kernel/bpf/devmap.c so we can use direct calls to
> > get better performace.
>
> Got any performance numbers? :)
Recently I tried with pktgen to get the performance number. It works
with native mode, although the number looks not high.
I tested it on VM with 1 cpu core. By forwarding to 7 ports, With pktgen
config like:
echo "count 10000000" > /proc/net/pktgen/veth0
echo "clone_skb 0" > /proc/net/pktgen/veth0
echo "pkt_size 64" > /proc/net/pktgen/veth0
echo "dst 224.1.1.10" > /proc/net/pktgen/veth0
I got forwarding number like:
Forwarding 159958 pkt/s
Forwarding 160213 pkt/s
Forwarding 160448 pkt/s
But when testing generic mode, I got system crashed directly. The code
path is:
do_xdp_generic()
- netif_receive_generic_xdp()
- pskb_expand_head() <- skb_is_nonlinear(skb)
- BUG_ON(skb_shared(skb))
So I want to ask do you have the same issue with pktgen? Any workaround?
> > diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index 2e29a671d67e..1dbe42290223 100644
> > --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>
> Updates to tools/include should generally go into a separate patch.
Is this a must to? It looks strange to separate the same implementation
into two patches.
Thanks
Hangbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists