Message-ID: <vbfa71wz1km.fsf@mellanox.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 14:38:49 +0300
From:   Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/4] Implement classifier-action terse dump mode

On Fri 22 May 2020 at 22:33, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:24 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue 19 May 2020 at 21:58, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:04 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com> wrote:
>> >> I considered that approach initially but decided against it for
>> >> following reasons:
>> >>
>> >> - Generic data is covered by current terse dump implementation.
>> >>   Everything else will be act or cls specific which would result long
>> >>   list of flag values like: TCA_DUMP_FLOWER_KEY_ETH_DST,
>> >>   TCA_DUMP_FLOWER_KEY_ETH_DST, TCA_DUMP_FLOWER_KEY_VLAN_ID, ...,
>> >>   TCA_DUMP_TUNNEL_KEY_ENC_KEY_ID, TCA_DUMP_TUNNEL_KEY_ENC_TOS. All of
>> >>   these would require a lot of dedicated logic in act and cls dump
>> >>   callbacks. Also, it would be quite a challenge to test all possible
>> >>   combinations.
>> >
>> > Well, if you consider netlink dump as a database query, what Edward
>> > proposed is merely "select COLUMN1 COLUMN2 from cls_db" rather
>> > than "select * from cls_db".
>> >
>> > No one said it is easy to implement, it is just more elegant than you
>> > select a hardcoded set of columns for the user.
>>
>> As I explained to Edward, having denser netlink packets with more
>> filters per packet is only part of optimization. Another part is not
>> executing some code at all. Consider fl_dump_key() which is 200 lines
>> function with bunch of conditionals like that:
>>
>> static int fl_dump_key(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net *net,
>>                        struct fl_flow_key *key, struct fl_flow_key *mask)
>> {
>>         if (mask->meta.ingress_ifindex) {
>>                 struct net_device *dev;
>>
>>                 dev = __dev_get_by_index(net, key->meta.ingress_ifindex);
>>                 if (dev && nla_put_string(skb, TCA_FLOWER_INDEV, dev->name))
>>                         goto nla_put_failure;
>>         }
>>
>>         if (fl_dump_key_val(skb, key->eth.dst, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ETH_DST,
>>                             mask->eth.dst, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ETH_DST_MASK,
>>                             sizeof(key->eth.dst)) ||
>>             fl_dump_key_val(skb, key->eth.src, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ETH_SRC,
>>                             mask->eth.src, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ETH_SRC_MASK,
>>                             sizeof(key->eth.src)) ||
>>             fl_dump_key_val(skb, &key->basic.n_proto, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ETH_TYPE,
>>                             &mask->basic.n_proto, TCA_FLOWER_UNSPEC,
>>                             sizeof(key->basic.n_proto)))
>>                 goto nla_put_failure;
>>
>>         if (fl_dump_key_mpls(skb, &key->mpls, &mask->mpls))
>>                 goto nla_put_failure;
>>
>>         if (fl_dump_key_vlan(skb, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_VLAN_ID,
>>                              TCA_FLOWER_KEY_VLAN_PRIO, &key->vlan, &mask->vlan))
>>                 goto nla_put_failure;
>>     ...
>>
>>
>> Now imagine all of these are extended with additional if (flags &
>> TCA_DUMP_XXX). All gains from not outputting some other minor stuff into
>> netlink packet will be negated by it.
>
> Interesting, are you saying a bit test is as expensive as appending
> an actual netlink attribution to the dumping? I am surprised.

It is not just adding a clause to all those conditionals. Some functions
are not called at all with current terse dump design. In the case of
fl_dump_key() it is just a bunch of conditionals (and maybe price of
cache misses to access struct fl_flow_key in a first place). In case of
tc_action_ops->dump() it is also obtaining a spinlock, some atomic ops,
etc. But I agree, "negated" is too strong of a word, "significantly
impacted" is more correct.

>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Think about it, what if another user wants a less terse dump but still
>> > not a full dump? Would you implement ops->terse_dump2()? Or
>> > what if people still think your terse dump is not as terse as she wants?
>> > ops->mini_dump()? How many ops's we would end having?
>>
>> User can discard whatever he doesn't need in user land code. The goal of
>> this change is performance optimization, not designing a generic
>> kernel-space data filtering mechanism.
>
> You optimize the performance by reducing the dump size, which is
> already effectively a data filtering. This doesn't have to be your goal,
> you are implementing it anyway.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> - It is hard to come up with proper validation for such implementation.
>> >>   In case of terse dump I just return an error if classifier doesn't
>> >>   implement the callback (and since current implementation only outputs
>> >>   generic action info, it doesn't even require support from
>> >>   action-specific dump callbacks). But, for example, how do we validate
>> >>   a case where user sets some flower and tunnel_key act dump flags from
>> >>   previous paragraph, but Qdisc contains some other classifier? Or
>> >>   flower classifier points to other types of actions? Or when flower
>> >>   classifier has and tunnel_key actions but also mirred? Should the
>> >
>> > Each action should be able to dump selectively too. If you think it
>> > as a database, it is just a different table with different schemas.
>>
>> How is designing custom SQL-like query language (according to your
>> example at the beginning of the mail) for filter dump is going to
>> improve performance? If there is a way to do it in fast a generic manner
>> with BPF, then I'm very interested to hear the details. But adding
>> hundred more hardcoded conditionals is just not a solution considering
>> main motivations for this change is performance.
>
> I still wonder how a bit test is as expensive as you claim, it does
> not look like you actually measure it. This of course depends on the
> size of the dump, but if you look at other netlink dump in kernel,
> not just tc filters, we already dump a lot of attributes per record.
>
> Thanks.

I agree that I didn't specify which parts of the change constitute what
fraction of the dump rate increase. Lets stage a simple test to verify
the cost of calling just two functions (fl_dump_key() and
tc_act_ops->dump() callback) and instantly discarding their results from
packet (patch attached).

View attachment "terse_dump_test1.diff" of type "text/plain" (1771 bytes)


Result for terse dumping 1m simple rules (flower with L2 key + gact
drop) on current net-next:

$ time sudo tc -s filter show terse dev ens1f0 ingress >/dev/null

real    0m3.445s
user    0m2.087s
sys     0m1.298s

With patch applied:

$ time sudo tc -s filter show terse dev ens1f0_0 ingress >/dev/null

real    0m5.035s
user    0m3.289s
sys     0m1.687s

As we can see this leads to 30% overhead in kernel space execution time.

Now with more complex rules (flower 5tuple + act tunnel key + act
mirred) on current net-next:

$ time sudo tc -s filter show terse dev ens1f0 ingress >/dev/null

real    0m4.052s
user    0m2.065s
sys     0m1.937s

Same rules with patch applied:

$ time sudo tc -s filter show terse dev ens1f0_0 ingress >/dev/null

real    0m6.346s
user    0m3.166s
sys     0m3.108s

With more complex rules performance impact on kernel space execution
time get more severe (60%). Overall, this looks like significant
degradation.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists