[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y2HHTV9SFBdFtDuq@Laptop-X1>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 09:26:37 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH (repost) net-next] sched: add extack for tfilter_notify
Hi Jamal,
Any comments?
Thanks
Hangbin
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 05:58:14PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 11:27:08AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > > But, precisely. In the example Hangbin gave, it is showing why the
> > > entry is not_in_hw. That's still data that belongs to the event that
> > > happened and that can't be queried afterwards even if the user/app
> > > monitoring it want to. Had it failed entirely, I agree, as the control
> > > path never changed.
> > >
> > > tc monitor is easier to use than perf probes in some systems. It's not
> > > uncommon to have tc installed but not perf. It's also easier to ask a
> > > customer to run it than explain how to enable the tracepoint and print
> > > ftrace buffer via /sys files, and the output is more meaningful for us
> > > as well: we know exactly which filter triggered the message. The only
> > > other place that we can correlate the filter and the warning, is on
> > > vswitchd log. Which is not easy to read either.
> >
> > To Jakub's point: I think one of those NLMSGERR TLVs is the right place
> > and while traces look attractive I see the value of having a unified
> > collection point via the tc monitor.
>
> Hi Jamal,
>
> Sorry for the late response. I just came back form vacation. For this issue,
> I saw netlink_dump_done() also put NLMSGERR_ATTR_MSG in NLMSG_DONE.
> So why can't we do the same here?
>
> In https://www.kernel.org/doc/html//next/userspace-api/netlink/intro.html,
> The "optionally extended ACK" in NLMSG_DONE is OK.
>
> > Since you cant really batch events - it seems the NLMSG_DONE/MULTI
> > hack is done just to please iproute2::tc?
>
> Yes.
>
> > IMO:
> > I think if you need to do this, then you have to teach iproute2
> > new ways of interpreting the message (which is nice because you
> > dont have to worry about backward compat). Some of that code
> > should be centralized and reused by netlink generically
> > instead of just cls_api, example the whole NLM_F_ACK_TLVS dance.
>
> Would you please help explain more about this?
>
> >
> > Also - i guess it will depend on the underlying driver?
> > This seems very related to a specific driver:
> > "Warning: mlx5_core: matching on ct_state +new isn't supported."
> > Debuggability is always great but so is backwards compat.
> > What happens when you run old userspace tc? There are tons
> > of punting systems that process these events out there and
> > depend on the current event messages as is.
>
> I think old tc should just ignore this NLMSGERR_ATTR_MSG?
>
> Thanks
> Hangbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists