Date:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:05:48 +0300
From:   Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
CC:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        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 1/3] flow_offload: allow user to offload tc
 action to net device

On Wed 28 Jul 2021 at 10:46, Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 07:47:43PM +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 19:13, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
>> > On 2021-07-27 10:38 a.m., Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> >> On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 16:04, Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Also showing a tc command line in the cover letter on how one would
>> >>>> ask for a specific action to be offloaded.
>> >>>
>> >>> In practice actions are offloaded when a flow using them is offloaded.
>> >>> So I think we need to consider what the meaning of IN_HW is.
>> >>>
>> >>> Is it that:
>> >>>
>> >>> * The driver (and potentially hardware, though not in our current
>> >>>    implementation) has accepted the action for offload;
>> >>> * That a classifier that uses the action has bee offloaded;
>> >>> * Or something else?
>> >> I think we have the same issue with filters - they might not be in
>> >> hardware after driver callback returned "success" (due to neigh state
>> >> being invalid for tunnel_key encap, for example).
>> >> 
>> >
>> > Sounds like we need another state for this. Otherwise, how do you debug
>> > that something is sitting in the driver and not in hardware after you
>> > issued a command to offload it? How do i tell today?
>> > Also knowing reason why something is sitting in the driver would be
>> > helpful.
>> 
>> It is not about just adding another state. The issue is that there is no
>> way for drivers to change the state of software filter dynamically.
>
> I think it might be worth considering enhancing things at some point.
> But I agree that its more than a matter of adding an extra flag. And
> I think it's reasonable to implement something similar to the classifier
> current offload handling of IN_HW now and consider enhancements separately.
>
>> >>> With regards to a counter, I'm not quite sure what this would be:
>> >>>
>> >>> * The number of devices where the action has been offloaded (which ties
>> >>>    into the question of what we mean by IN_HW)
>> >>> * The number of offloaded classifier instances using the action
>> >>> * Something else
>> >> I would prefer to have semantics similar to filters:
>> >> 1. Count number of driver callbacks that returned "success".
>> >> 2. If count > 0, then set in_hw flag.
>> >> 3. Set in_hw_count to success count.
>> >> This would allow user to immediately determine whether action passed
>> >> driver validation.
>
> Thanks, that makes sense to me.
>
>> > I didnt follow this:
>> > Are we refering to the the "block" semantics (where a filter for
>> > example applies to multiple devices)?
>> 
>> This uses indirect offload infrastructure, which means all drivers
>> in flow_block_indr_dev_list will receive action offload requests.
>> 
>> >>> Regarding a flag to control offload:
>> >>>
>> >>> * For classifiers (at least the flower classifier) there is the skip_sw and
>> >>>    skip_hw flags, which allow control of placement of a classifier in SW and
>> >>>    HW.
>> >>> * We could add similar flags for actions, which at least in my
>> >>>    world view would have the net-effect of controlling which classifiers can
>> >>>    be added to sw and hw - f.e. a classifier that uses an action marked
>> >>>    skip_hw could not be added to HW.
>> >
>> > I guess it depends on the hardware implementation.
>> > In S/W we have two modes:
>> > Approach A: create an action and then 2) bind it to a filter.
>> > Approach B: Create a filter and then bind it to an action.
>> >
>> > And #2A can be repeated multiple times for the same action
>> > (would require some index as a reference for the action)
>> > To Simon's comment above that would mean allowing
>> > "a classifier that uses an action marked skip_hw to be added to HW"
>> > i.e
>> > Some hardware is capable of doing both option #A and #B.
>> >
>> > Todays offload assumes #B - in which both filter and action are assumed
>> > offloaded.
>> >
>> > I am hoping whatever approach we end up agreeing on doesnt limit
>> > either mode.
>> >
>> >>> * Doing so would add some extra complexity and its not immediately apparent
>> >>>    to me what the use-case would be given that there are already flags for
>> >>>    classifiers.
>> >> Yeah, adding such flag for action offload seems to complicate things.
>> >> Also, "skip_sw" flag doesn't even make much sense for actions. I thought
>> >> that "skip_hw" flag would be nice to have for users that would like to
>> >> avoid "spamming" their NIC drivers (potentially causing higher latency
>> >> and resource consumption) for filters/actions they have no intention to
>> >> offload to hardware, but I'm not sure how useful is that option really
>> >> is.
>> >
>> > Hold on Vlad.
>> > So you are looking at this mostly as an optimization to speed up h/w
>> > control updates? ;->
>> 
>> No. How would adding more flags improve h/w update rate? I was just
>> thinking that it is strange that users that are not interested in
>> offloads would suddenly have higher memory usage for their actions just
>> because they happen to have offload-capable driver loaded. But it is not
>> a major concern for me.
>
> In that case can we rely on the global tc-offload on/off flag
> provided by ethtool? (I understand its not the same, but perhaps
> it is sufficient in practice.)

Yes, the ethtool should be sufficient. Didn't think about it initially.
Thanks!

>
>> > I was looking at it more as a (currently missing) feature improvement.
>> > We already have a use case that is implemented by s/w today. The feature
>> > mimics it in h/w.
>> >
>> > At minimal all existing NICs should be able to support the counters
>> > as mapped to simple actions like drop. I understand for example if some
>> > cant support adding separately offloading of tunnels for example.
>> > So the syntax is something along the lines of:
>> >
>> > tc actions add action drop index 15 skip_sw
>> > tc filter add dev ...parent ... protocol ip prio X ..\
>> > u32/flower skip_sw match ... flowid 1:10 action gact index 15
>> >
>> > You get an error if counter index 15 is not offloaded or
>> > if skip_sw was left out..
>> >
>> > And then later on, if you support sharing of actions:
>> > tc filter add dev ...parent ... protocol ip prio X2 ..\
>> > u32/flower skip_sw match ... flowid 1:10 action gact index 15
>
> Right, I understand that makes sense and is internally consistent.
> But I think that in practice it only makes a difference "Approach B"
> implementations, none of which currently exist.
>
> I would suggest we can add this when the need arises, rather than
> speculatively without hw/driver support. Its not precluded by the current
> model AFAIK.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists