Message-ID: <a2f19534-9752-845c-9b8a-3aa75b5f3706@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2023 10:41:39 +0200
From:   Paul Blakey <paulb@...dia.com>
To:     Marcelo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>,
        Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@....org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>, Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 0/7] net/sched: cls_api: Support hardware miss
 to tc action



On 07/02/2023 07:03, Marcelo Leitner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:20:55AM +0100, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>> On 2/6/23 18:14, Paul Blakey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/02/2023 14:34, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>>>> On 2/5/23 16:49, Paul Blakey wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> This series adds support for hardware miss to instruct tc to continue execution
>>>>> in a specific tc action instance on a filter's action list. The mlx5 driver patch
>>>>> (besides the refactors) shows its usage instead of using just chain restore.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently a filter's action list must be executed all together or
>>>>> not at all as driver are only able to tell tc to continue executing from a
>>>>> specific tc chain, and not a specific filter/action.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is troublesome with regards to action CT, where new connections should
>>>>> be sent to software (via tc chain restore), and established connections can
>>>>> be handled in hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> Checking for new connections is done when executing the ct action in hardware
>>>>> (by checking the packet's tuple against known established tuples).
>>>>> But if there is a packet modification (pedit) action before action CT and the
>>>>> checked tuple is a new connection, hardware will need to revert the previous
>>>>> packet modifications before sending it back to software so it can
>>>>> re-match the same tc filter in software and re-execute its CT action.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is an example configuration of stateless nat
>>>>> on mlx5 driver that isn't supported before this patchet:
>>>>>
>>>>>    #Setup corrosponding mlx5 VFs in namespaces
>>>>>    $ ip netns add ns0
>>>>>    $ ip netns add ns1
>>>>>    $ ip link set dev enp8s0f0v0 netns ns0
>>>>>    $ ip netns exec ns0 ifconfig enp8s0f0v0 1.1.1.1/24 up
>>>>>    $ ip link set dev enp8s0f0v1 netns ns1
>>>>>    $ ip netns exec ns1 ifconfig enp8s0f0v1 1.1.1.2/24 up
>>>>>
>>>>>    #Setup tc arp and ct rules on mxl5 VF representors
>>>>>    $ tc qdisc add dev enp8s0f0_0 ingress
>>>>>    $ tc qdisc add dev enp8s0f0_1 ingress
>>>>>    $ ifconfig enp8s0f0_0 up
>>>>>    $ ifconfig enp8s0f0_1 up
>>>>>
>>>>>    #Original side
>>>>>    $ tc filter add dev enp8s0f0_0 ingress chain 0 proto ip flower \
>>>>>       ct_state -trk ip_proto tcp dst_port 8888 \
>>>>>         action pedit ex munge tcp dport set 5001 pipe \
>>>>>         action csum ip tcp pipe \
>>>>>         action ct pipe \
>>>>>         action goto chain 1
>>>>>    $ tc filter add dev enp8s0f0_0 ingress chain 1 proto ip flower \
>>>>>       ct_state +trk+est \
>>>>>         action mirred egress redirect dev enp8s0f0_1
>>>>>    $ tc filter add dev enp8s0f0_0 ingress chain 1 proto ip flower \
>>>>>       ct_state +trk+new \
>>>>>         action ct commit pipe \
>>>>>         action mirred egress redirect dev enp8s0f0_1
>>>>>    $ tc filter add dev enp8s0f0_0 ingress chain 0 proto arp flower \
>>>>>         action mirred egress redirect dev enp8s0f0_1
>>>>>
>>>>>    #Reply side
>>>>>    $ tc filter add dev enp8s0f0_1 ingress chain 0 proto arp flower \
>>>>>         action mirred egress redirect dev enp8s0f0_0
>>>>>    $ tc filter add dev enp8s0f0_1 ingress chain 0 proto ip flower \
>>>>>       ct_state -trk ip_proto tcp \
>>>>>         action ct pipe \
>>>>>         action pedit ex munge tcp sport set 8888 pipe \
>>>>>         action csum ip tcp pipe \
>>>>>         action mirred egress redirect dev enp8s0f0_0
>>>>>
>>>>>    #Run traffic
>>>>>    $ ip netns exec ns1 iperf -s -p 5001&
>>>>>    $ sleep 2 #wait for iperf to fully open
>>>>>    $ ip netns exec ns0 iperf -c 1.1.1.2 -p 8888
>>>>>
>>>>>    #dump tc filter stats on enp8s0f0_0 chain 0 rule and see hardware packets:
>>>>>    $ tc -s filter show dev enp8s0f0_0 ingress chain 0 proto ip | grep "hardware.*pkt"
>>>>>           Sent hardware 9310116832 bytes 6149672 pkt
>>>>>           Sent hardware 9310116832 bytes 6149672 pkt
>>>>>           Sent hardware 9310116832 bytes 6149672 pkt
>>>>>
>>>>> A new connection executing the first filter in hardware will first rewrite
>>>>> the dst port to the new port, and then the ct action is executed,
>>>>> because this is a new connection, hardware will need to be send this back
>>>>> to software, on chain 0, to execute the first filter again in software.
>>>>> The dst port needs to be reverted otherwise it won't re-match the old
>>>>> dst port in the first filter. Because of that, currently mlx5 driver will
>>>>> reject offloading the above action ct rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> This series adds supports partial offload of a filter's action list,
>>>>> and letting tc software continue processing in the specific action instance
>>>>> where hardware left off (in the above case after the "action pedit ex munge tcp
>>>>> dport... of the first rule") allowing support for scenarios such as the above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Paul.  Not sure if this was discussed before, but don't we also need
>>>> a new TCA_CLS_FLAGS_IN_HW_PARTIAL flag or something like this?
>>>>
>>>> Currently the in_hw/not_in_hw flags are reported per filter, i.e. these
>>>> flags are not per-action.  This may cause confusion among users, if flows
>>>> are reported as in_hw, while they are actually partially or even mostly
>>>> processed in SW.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
>>>
>>> I think its a good idea, and I'm fine with proposing something like this in a
>>> different series, as this isn't a new problem from this series and existed before
>>> it, at least with CT rules.
>>
>> Hmm, I didn't realize the issue already exists.
> 
> Maintainers: please give me up to Friday to review this patchset.
> 
> Disclaimer: I had missed this patchset, and I didn't even read it yet.
> 
> I don't follow. Can someone please rephase the issue please?
> AFAICT, it is not that the NIC is offloading half of the action list
> and never executing a part of it. Instead, for established connections
> the rule will work fully offloaded. While for misses in the CT action,
> it will simply trigger a miss, like it already does today.

You got it right, and like you said it was like this before so its not 
strictly related by this series and could be in a different patchset. 
And I thought that (extra) flag would mean that it can miss, compared to 
other rules/actions combination that will never miss because they
don't need sw support.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> So how about I'll propose it in a different series and we continue with this first?
> 
> So I'm not sure either on what's the idea here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Marcelo
> 
>>
>> Sounds fine to me.  Thanks!
>>
>> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
>>
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists