[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ea898db-563c-851b-c3da-9389abcb83ac@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:54:55 +0200
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>
To: Kishen Maloor <kishen.maloor@...el.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, hawk@...nel.org, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
Cc: brouer@...hat.com, Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 5/5] samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c: Launchtime/TXTIME
API usage
On 03/08/2021 19.10, Kishen Maloor wrote:
> diff --git a/samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c b/samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c
> index 3fd2f6a0d1eb..a0fd3d5414ba 100644
> --- a/samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c
> +++ b/samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c
[...]
> @@ -741,6 +745,8 @@ static inline u16 udp_csum(u32 saddr, u32 daddr, u32 len,
>
> #define ETH_FCS_SIZE 4
>
> +#define MD_SIZE (sizeof(struct xdp_user_tx_metadata))
> +
> #define PKT_HDR_SIZE (sizeof(struct ethhdr) + sizeof(struct iphdr) + \
> sizeof(struct udphdr))
>
> @@ -798,8 +804,10 @@ static void gen_eth_hdr_data(void)
>
> static void gen_eth_frame(struct xsk_umem_info *umem, u64 addr)
> {
> - memcpy(xsk_umem__get_data(umem->buffer, addr), pkt_data,
> - PKT_SIZE);
> + if (opt_launch_time)
> + memcpy(xsk_umem__get_data(umem->buffer, addr) + MD_SIZE, pkt_data, PKT_SIZE);
> + else
> + memcpy(xsk_umem__get_data(umem->buffer, addr), pkt_data, PKT_SIZE);
> }
>
I imagined that AF_XDP 'addr' would still point to the start of the
packet data, and that metadata area was access via a negative offset
from 'addr'.
Maybe I misunderstood the code, but it looks like 'addr'
(xsk_umem__get_data(umem->buffer, addr)) points to metadata area, is
this correct?
(and to skip this the code does + MD_SIZE, before memcpy)
One problem/challenge with AF_XDP is that we don't have room in struct
xdp_desc to store info on the size of the metadata area. Bjørn came up
with the idea of having btf_id as last member (access able via minus 4
bytes), as this tells the kernel the size of metadata area.
Maybe you have come up with a better solution?
(of making the metadata area size dynamic)
--Jesper
Powered by blists - more mailing lists