| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ygnhczraqtxm.fsf@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:55:49 +0300
From: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<oss-drivers@...igine.com>,
Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>,
"Louis Peens" <louis.peens@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] flow_offload: add process to update action
stats from hardware
On Thu 22 Jul 2021 at 12:19, Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> wrote:
> From: Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>
>
> When collecting stats for actions update them using both
> both hardware and software counters.
>
> Signed-off-by: Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>
> Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
> ---
> include/net/act_api.h | 1 +
> include/net/flow_offload.h | 2 +-
> include/net/pkt_cls.h | 4 ++++
> net/sched/act_api.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 4 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/act_api.h b/include/net/act_api.h
> index 086b291e9530..fe8331b5efce 100644
> --- a/include/net/act_api.h
> +++ b/include/net/act_api.h
> @@ -233,6 +233,7 @@ static inline void tcf_action_inc_overlimit_qstats(struct tc_action *a)
> void tcf_action_update_stats(struct tc_action *a, u64 bytes, u64 packets,
> u64 drops, bool hw);
> int tcf_action_copy_stats(struct sk_buff *, struct tc_action *, int);
> +int tcf_action_update_hw_stats(struct tc_action *action);
>
> int tcf_action_check_ctrlact(int action, struct tcf_proto *tp,
> struct tcf_chain **handle,
> diff --git a/include/net/flow_offload.h b/include/net/flow_offload.h
> index 26644596fd54..467688fff7ce 100644
> --- a/include/net/flow_offload.h
> +++ b/include/net/flow_offload.h
> @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ enum flow_act_command {
> };
>
> struct flow_offload_action {
> - struct netlink_ext_ack *extack;
> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack; /* NULL in FLOW_ACT_STATS process*/
> enum flow_act_command command;
> struct flow_stats stats;
> struct flow_action action;
> diff --git a/include/net/pkt_cls.h b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> index 03dae225d64f..569c9294b15b 100644
> --- a/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> +++ b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> @@ -282,6 +282,10 @@ tcf_exts_stats_update(const struct tcf_exts *exts,
> for (i = 0; i < exts->nr_actions; i++) {
> struct tc_action *a = exts->actions[i];
>
> + /* if stats from hw, just skip */
> + if (!tcf_action_update_hw_stats(a))
> + continue;
> +
Is it okay to call this inside preempt disable section?
> tcf_action_stats_update(a, bytes, packets, drops,
> lastuse, true);
> a->used_hw_stats = used_hw_stats;
> diff --git a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api.c
> index 23a4538916af..7d5535bc2c13 100644
> --- a/net/sched/act_api.c
> +++ b/net/sched/act_api.c
> @@ -1089,15 +1089,18 @@ int tcf_action_offload_cmd_pre(struct tc_action *actions[],
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_action_offload_cmd_pre);
>
> int tcf_action_offload_cmd_post(struct flow_offload_action *fl_act,
> - struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack,
> + bool keep_fl_act)
> {
> if (IS_ERR(fl_act))
> return PTR_ERR(fl_act);
>
> flow_indr_dev_setup_offload(NULL, NULL, TC_SETUP_ACT, fl_act, NULL, NULL);
>
> - tc_cleanup_flow_action(&fl_act->action);
> - kfree(fl_act);
> + if (!keep_fl_act) {
> + tc_cleanup_flow_action(&fl_act->action);
> + kfree(fl_act);
> + }
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1115,10 +1118,45 @@ int tcf_action_offload_cmd(struct tc_action *actions[],
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> - return tcf_action_offload_cmd_post(fl_act, extack);
> + return tcf_action_offload_cmd_post(fl_act, extack, false);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_action_offload_cmd);
>
> +int tcf_action_update_hw_stats(struct tc_action *action)
> +{
> + struct tc_action *actions[TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO] = {
> + [0] = action,
> + };
> + struct flow_offload_action *fl_act;
> + int err = 0;
> +
Having some way to distinguish offloaded actions would also be useful
here to skip this function. I wonder how this affects dump rate when
executed for every single action, even when none of them were offloaded
through action API.
> + err = tcf_action_offload_cmd_pre(actions,
> + FLOW_ACT_STATS,
> + NULL,
> + &fl_act);
> + if (err)
> + goto err_out;
> +
> + err = tcf_action_offload_cmd_post(fl_act, NULL, true);
> +
> + if (fl_act->stats.lastused) {
> + tcf_action_stats_update(action, fl_act->stats.bytes,
> + fl_act->stats.pkts,
> + fl_act->stats.drops,
> + fl_act->stats.lastused,
> + true);
> + err = 0;
> + } else {
> + err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> + tc_cleanup_flow_action(&fl_act->action);
> + kfree(fl_act);
> +
> +err_out:
> + return err;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_action_update_hw_stats);
> +
> /* offload the tc command after deleted */
> int tcf_action_offload_del_post(struct flow_offload_action *fl_act,
> struct tc_action *actions[],
> @@ -1255,6 +1293,9 @@ int tcf_action_copy_stats(struct sk_buff *skb, struct tc_action *p,
> if (p == NULL)
> goto errout;
>
> + /* update hw stats for this action */
> + tcf_action_update_hw_stats(p);
> +
> /* compat_mode being true specifies a call that is supposed
> * to add additional backward compatibility statistic TLVs.
> */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists