Date:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:12:05 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>,
        Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Freysteinn Alfredsson <freysteinn.alfredsson@....se>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] xdp: Add packet queueing and scheduling
 capabilities

Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 11:52:07PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 4:14 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Packet forwarding is an important use case for XDP, which offers
>> >> significant performance improvements compared to forwarding using the
>> >> regular networking stack. However, XDP currently offers no mechanism to
>> >> delay, queue or schedule packets, which limits the practical uses for
>> >> XDP-based forwarding to those where the capacity of input and output links
>> >> always match each other (i.e., no rate transitions or many-to-one
>> >> forwarding). It also prevents an XDP-based router from doing any kind of
>> >> traffic shaping or reordering to enforce policy.
>> >>
>> >> This series represents a first RFC of our attempt to remedy this lack. The
>> >> code in these patches is functional, but needs additional testing and
>> >> polishing before being considered for merging. I'm posting it here as an
>> >> RFC to get some early feedback on the API and overall design of the
>> >> feature.
>> >>
>> >> DESIGN
>> >>
>> >> The design consists of three components: A new map type for storing XDP
>> >> frames, a new 'dequeue' program type that will run in the TX softirq to
>> >> provide the stack with packets to transmit, and a set of helpers to dequeue
>> >> packets from the map, optionally drop them, and to schedule an interface
>> >> for transmission.
>> >>
>> >> The new map type is modelled on the PIFO data structure proposed in the
>> >> literature[0][1]. It represents a priority queue where packets can be
>> >> enqueued in any priority, but is always dequeued from the head. From the
>> >> XDP side, the map is simply used as a target for the bpf_redirect_map()
>> >> helper, where the target index is the desired priority.
>> >
>> > I have the same question I asked on the series from Cong:
>> > Any considerations for existing carousel/edt-like models?
>> 
>> Well, the reason for the addition in patch 5 (continuously increasing
>> priorities) is exactly to be able to implement EDT-like behaviour, where
>> the priority is used as time units to clock out packets.
>
> Are you sure? I seriouly doubt your patch can do this at all...
>
> Since your patch relies on bpf_map_push_elem(), which has no room for
> 'key' hence you reuse 'flags' but you also reserve 4 bits there... How
> could tstamp be packed with 4 reserved bits??

Well, my point was that the *data structure* itself supports 64-bit
priorities, and that's what we use from bpf_map_redirect() in XDP. The
choice of reserving four bits was a bit of an arbitrary choice on my
part. I actually figured 60 bits would be plenty to represent timestamps
in themselves, but I guess I miscalculated a bit for nanosecond
timestamps (60 bits only gets you 36 years of range there).

We could lower that to 2 reserved bits, which gets you a range of 146
years using 62 bits; or users could just right-shift the value by a
couple of bits before putting them in the map (scheduling with
single-nanosecond precision is not possible anyway, so losing a few bits
of precision is no big deal); or we could add a new helper instead of
reusing the existing one.

> Actually, if we look into the in-kernel EDT implementation
> (net/sched/sch_etf.c), it is also based on rbtree rather than PIFO.

The main reason I eschewed the existing rbtree code is that I don't
believe it's sufficiently performant, mainly due to the rebalancing.
This is a hunch, though, and as I mentioned in a different reply I'm
planning to go back and revisit the data structure, including
benchmarking different implementations against each other.

-Toke

Powered by blists - more mailing lists