Date:   Sun, 8 Jan 2023 14:42:22 +0200
From:   Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, davem@...emloft.net, hawk@...nel.org,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com,
        songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, gal@...dia.com,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, tariqt@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] samples/bpf: fixup some tools to be able to
 support xdp multibuffer



On 08/01/2023 14:33, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/01/2023 20:16, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 11:57:32 -0500 Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>>>> So my main concern would be that if we "allow" this, the only way to
>>>> write an interoperable XDP program will be to use bpf_xdp_load_bytes()
>>>> for every packet access. Which will be slower than DPA, so we may 
>>>> end up
>>>> inadvertently slowing down all of the XDP ecosystem, because no one is
>>>> going to bother with writing two versions of their programs. Whereas if
>>>> you can rely on packet headers always being in the linear part, you can
>>>> write a lot of the "look at headers and make a decision" type programs
>>>> using just DPA, and they'll work for multibuf as well.
>>>
>>> The question I would have is what is really the 'slow down' for
>>> bpf_xdp_load_bytes() vs DPA?  I know you and Jesper can tell me how many
>>> instructions each use. :)
>>
>> Until we have an efficient and inlined DPA access to frags an
>> unconditional memcpy() of the first 2 cachelines-worth of headers
>> in the driver must be faster than a piece-by-piece bpf_xdp_load_bytes()
>> onto the stack, right?
>>
>>> Taking a step back...years ago Dave mentioned wanting to make XDP
>>> programs easy to write and it feels like using these accessor APIs would
>>> help accomplish that.  If the kernel examples use bpf_xdp_load_bytes()
>>> accessors everywhere then that would accomplish that.
>>
>> I've been pushing for an skb_header_pointer()-like helper but
>> the semantics were not universally loved :)
> 
> Maybe it's time to re-consider.
> 
> Is it something like an API that given an offset returns a pointer + 
> allowed length to be accessed?
> 
> This sounds like a good direction to me, that avoids having any 
> linear-part-length assumptions, while preserving good performance.
> 
> Maybe we can still require/guarantee that each single header (eth, ip, 
> tcp, ...) does not cross a frag/page boundary. For otherwise, a prog 
> needs to handle cases where headers span several fragments, so it has to 
> reconstruct the header by copying the different parts into some local 
> buffer.
> 
> This can be achieved by having another assumption that AFAIK already 
> holds today: all fragments are of size PAGE_SIZE.
> 
> Regards,
> Tariq

This can be a good starting point:
static void *bpf_xdp_pointer(struct xdp_buff *xdp, u32 offset, u32 len)

It's currently not exposed as a bpf-helper, and it works a bit 
differently to what I mentioned earlier: It gets the desired length, and 
fails in case it's not continuously accessible (i.e. this piece of data 
spans multiple frags).

Powered by blists - more mailing lists