Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+Jc6G78gJOA758bkCt4sgiwaxgC7S0cr9J=XBPfMDUSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 10:35:10 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>,
        xdp-hints@...-project.net, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
        "Song, Yoong Siang" <yoong.siang.song@...el.com>,
        "Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
        intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next V2 3/6] selftests/bpf: xdp_hw_metadata RX hash
 return code info

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:51 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
<jbrouer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 22/03/2023 20.33, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:30 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:23 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:17 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> >>> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:00 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:07 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> >>>>> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:05 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> >>>>>> <jbrouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 21/03/2023 19.47, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 6:47 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> >>>>>>>> <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> When driver developers add XDP-hints kfuncs for RX hash it is
> >>>>>>>>> practical to print the return code in bpf_printk trace pipe log.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Print hash value as a hex value, both AF_XDP userspace and bpf_prog,
> >>>>>>>>> as this makes it easier to spot poor quality hashes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>    .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/xdp_hw_metadata.c  |    9 ++++++---
> >>>>>>>>>    tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c      |    5 ++++-
> >>>>>>>>>    2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/xdp_hw_metadata.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/xdp_hw_metadata.c
> >>>>>>>>> index 40c17adbf483..ce07010e4d48 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/xdp_hw_metadata.c
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/xdp_hw_metadata.c
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -77,10 +77,13 @@ int rx(struct xdp_md *ctx)
> >>>>>>>>>                   meta->rx_timestamp = 0; /* Used by AF_XDP as not avail signal */
> >>>>>>>>>           }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -       if (!bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_hash(ctx, &meta->rx_hash))
> >>>>>>>>> -               bpf_printk("populated rx_hash with %u", meta->rx_hash);
> >>>>>>>>> -       else
> >>>>>>>>> +       ret = bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_hash(ctx, &meta->rx_hash);
> >>>>>>>>> +       if (ret >= 0) {
> >>>>>>>>> +               bpf_printk("populated rx_hash with 0x%08X", meta->rx_hash);
> >>>>>>>>> +       } else {
> >>>>>>>>> +               bpf_printk("rx_hash not-avail errno:%d", ret);
> >>>>>>>>>                   meta->rx_hash = 0; /* Used by AF_XDP as not avail signal */
> >>>>>>>>> +       }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>           return bpf_redirect_map(&xsk, ctx->rx_queue_index, XDP_PASS);
> >>>>>>>>>    }
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c
> >>>>>>>>> index 400bfe19abfe..f3ec07ccdc95 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -3,6 +3,9 @@
> >>>>>>>>>    /* Reference program for verifying XDP metadata on real HW. Functional test
> >>>>>>>>>     * only, doesn't test the performance.
> >>>>>>>>>     *
> >>>>>>>>> + * BPF-prog bpf_printk info outout can be access via
> >>>>>>>>> + * /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> s/outout/output/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Fixed in V3
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But let's maybe drop it? If you want to make it more usable, let's
> >>>>>>>> have a separate patch to enable tracing and periodically dump it to
> >>>>>>>> the console instead (as previously discussed).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cat'ing /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe work for me regardless of
> >>>>>>> setting in
> >>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/bpf_trace/bpf_trace_printk/enable
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We likely need a followup patch that adds a BPF config switch that can
> >>>>>>> disable bpf_printk calls, because this adds overhead and thus affects
> >>>>>>> the timestamps.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No. This is by design.
> >>>>>> Do not use bpf_printk* in production.
>
> I fully agree do not use bpf_printk in *production*.
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But that's not for the production? xdp_hw_metadata is a small tool to
> >>>>> verify that the metadata being dumped is correct (during the
> >>>>> development).
> >>>>> We have a proper (less verbose) selftest in
> >>>>> {progs,prog_tests}/xdp_metadata.c (over veth).
> >>>>> This xdp_hw_metadata was supposed to be used for running it against
> >>>>> the real hardware, so having as much debugging at hand as possible
> >>>>> seems helpful? (at least it was helpful to me when playing with mlx4)
>
> My experience when developing these kfuncs for igc (real hardware), this
> "tool" xdp_hw_metadata was super helpful, because it was very verbose
> (and I was juggling reading chip registers BE/LE and see patch1 a buggy
> implementation for RX-hash).
>
> As I wrote in cover-letter, I recommend other driver developers to do
> the same, because it really help speed up the development. In theory
> xdp_hw_metadata doesn't belong in selftests directory and IMHO it should
> have been placed in samples/bpf/, but given the relationship with real
> selftest {progs,prog_tests}/xdp_metadata.c I think it makes sense to
> keep here.
>
>
> >>>>
> >>>> The only use of bpf_printk is for debugging of bpf progs themselves.
> >>>> It should not be used in any tool.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, good point. I guess it also means we won't have to mess with
> >>> enabling/dumping ftrace (and don't need this comment about cat'ing the
> >>> file).
> >>> Jesper, maybe we can instead pass the status of those
> >>> bpf_xdp_metadata_xxx kfuncs via 'struct xdp_meta'? And dump this info
> >>> from the userspace if needed.
> >>
> >> There are so many other ways for bpf prog to communicate with user space.
> >> Use ringbuf, perf_event buffer, global vars, maps, etc.
> >> trace_pipe is debug only because it's global and will conflict with
> >> all other debug sessions.
>
> I want to highlight above paragraph: It is very true for production
> code. (Anyone Googling this pay attention to above paragraph).
>
> >
> > 👍 makes sense, ty! hopefully we won't have to add a separate channel
> > for those and can (ab)use the metadata area.
> >
>
> Proposed solution: How about default disabling the bpf_printk's via a
> macro define, and then driver developer can manually reenable them
> easily via a single define, to enable a debugging mode.
>
> I was only watching /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe when I was
> debugging a driver issue.  Thus, an extra step of modifying a single
> define in BPF seems easier, than instrumenting my driver with printk.

It's certainly fine to have commented out bpf_printk in selftests
and sample code.
But the patch does:
+       if (ret >= 0) {
+               bpf_printk("populated rx_hash with 0x%08X", meta->rx_hash);
+       } else {
+               bpf_printk("rx_hash not-avail errno:%d", ret);
                meta->rx_hash = 0; /* Used by AF_XDP as not avail signal */
+       }

It feels that printk is the only thing that provides the signal to the user.
Doing s/ret >= 0/true/ won't make any difference to selftest and
to the consumer and that's my main concern with such selftest/samples.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists