Message-ID: <ec969f62-a1bb-4287-a4eb-083201134bae@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:54:49 -0800
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@...dia.com>
CC: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Jonathan
 Corbet" <corbet@....net>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, "Tariq
 Toukan" <tariqt@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Vadim Fedorenko
	<vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit
	<hkallweit1@...il.com>, Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Ahmed
 Zaki <ahmed.zaki@...el.com>, Alexander Lobakin
	<aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, "Paul
 Greenwalt" <paul.greenwalt@...el.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Maxime Chevallier
	<maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>, Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
	Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>, Vladimir Oltean
	<vladimir.oltean@....com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Alexandre Torgue
	<alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, "Dragos
 Tatulea" <dtatulea@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v1 1/6] ethtool: add interface to read Tx
 hardware timestamping statistics



On 2/23/2024 3:43 PM, Rahul Rameshbabu wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 23 Feb, 2024 14:48:51 -0800 Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 2:21 PM, Rahul Rameshbabu wrote:
>>>> The Intel ice drivers has the following Tx timestamp statistics:
>>>>
>>>> tx_hwtstamp_skipped - indicates when we get a Tx timestamp request but
>>>> are unable to fulfill it.
>>>> tx_hwtstamp_timeouts - indicates we had a Tx timestamp skb waiting for a
>>>> timestamp from hardware but it didn't get received within some internal
>>>> time limit.
>>>
>>> This is interesting. In mlx5 land, the only case where we are unable to
>>> fulfill a hwtstamp is when the timestamp information is lost or late.
>>>
>>
>> For ice, the timestamps are captured in the PHY and stored in a block of
>> registers with limited slots. The driver tracks the available slots and
>> uses one when a Tx timestamp request comes in.
>>
>> So we have "skipped" because its possible to request too many timestamps
>> at once and fill up all the slots before the first timestamp is reported
>> back.
>>
>>> lost for us means that the timestamp never arrived within some internal
>>> time limit that our device will supposedly never be able to deliver
>>> timestamp information after that point.
>>>
>>
>> That is more or less the equivalent we have for timeout.
>>
>>> late for us is that we got hardware timestamp information delivered
>>> after that internal time limit. We are able to track this by using
>>> identifiers in our completion events and we only release references to
>>> these identifiers upon delivery (never delivering leaks the references.
>>> Enough build up leads to a recovery flow). The theory for us is that
>>> late timestamp information arrival after that period of time should not
>>> happen. However the truth is that it does happen and we want our driver
>>> implementation to be resilient to this case rather than trusting the
>>> time interval.
>>>
>>
>> In our case, because of how the slots work, once we "timeout" a slot, it
>> could get re-used. We set the timeout to be pretty ridiculous (1 second)
>> to ensure that if we do timeout its almost certainly because hardware
>> never timestamped the packet.
> 
> We were thinking about that design as well. We use a 1 second timeout to
> be safe.
> 
>   #define MLX5E_PTP_TS_CQE_UNDELIVERED_TIMEOUT (1 * NSEC_PER_SEC)
> 
> Our device does not do any bookkeeping internally to prevent a
> completion event with timestamp information from arriving after 1
> second. Some internal folks have said it shouldn't be possible, but we
> did not want to take any chances and built a model that is resilient to
> timestamp deliveries after any period of time even after consuming the
> skb without appending timestamp information. If no other vendor finds
> this useful, we could roll this up into the error counter and leave the
> late counter as vendor specific. I do not want to introduce too many
> counters that are hard to understand. We document the device specific
> counters on top of introducing them in the code base already.
> 
>   https://docs.kernel.org/networking/device_drivers/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/counters.html
> 

We can't distinguish "late". At best we could notice if we get a
timestamp on an index thats not currently active, but we wouldn't know
for sure if it was late from a previous request or due to some other
programming error.

>>
>>> Do you have any example of a case of skipping timestamp information that
>>> is not related to lack of delivery over time? I am wondering if this
>>> case is more like a hardware error or not. Or is it more like something
>>> along the lines of being busy/would impact line rate of timestamp
>>> information must be recorded?
>>>
>>
>> The main example for skipped is the event where all our slots are full
>> at point of timestamp request.
> 
> This is what I was guessing as the main (if not only reason). For this
> specific reason, I think a general "busy" stats counter makes sense.
> mlx5 does not need this counter, but I can see a lot of other hw
> implementations needing this. (The skipped counter name obviously should
> be left only in the ice driver. Just felt "busy" was easy to understand
> for generalized counters.)

Yea, I don't expect this would be required for all hardware but it seems
like a common approach if you have limited slots for Tx timestamps
available.

> 
> The reason why I prefer busy is that "skip" to me makes me think someone
> used SIOCSHWTSTAMP to filter which packets get timestamped which is very
> different from something like lack of resource availability.
> 

Busy is fine with me.

>>>> The only major addition I think is the skipped stat, which I would
>>>> prefer to have. Perhaps that could be tracked in the netdev layer by
>>>> checking whether the skb flags to see whether or not the driver actually
>>>> set the appropriate flag?
>>>
>>> I guess the problem is how would the core stack know at what layer this
>>> was skipped at (I think Kory's patch series can be used to help with
>>> this since it's adding a common interface in ethtool to select the
>>> timestamping layer). As of today, mlx5 is the only driver I know of that
>>> supports selecting between the DMA and PHY layers for timestamp
>>> information.
>>>
>>
>> Well, the way the interface worked in my understanding was that the core
>> sets the SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP flag. The driver is supposed to then prepare
>> the packet for timestamp and set the SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS flag. I just
>> looked though, and it looks like ice doesn't actually set this flag...
> 
> That would be a good fix. We set this in mlx5.
> 
> 	/* device driver is going to provide hardware time stamp */
> 	SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS = 1 << 2,
> 

Yea. I kind of wonder how necessary it is since we haven't been setting
it and don't seem to have an existing bug report for this. I can dig
through the kernel and see what it actually does...

>>
>> If we fixed this, in theory the stack should be able to check after the
>> packet gets sent with SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP, if SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS isn't set
>> then it would be a skipped timestamp?
> 
> One question I have about this idea. Wouldn't SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS also not
> be set in the case when timestamp information is lost/a timeout occurs?
> I feel like the problem is not being able to separate these two cases
> from the perspective of the core stack.
> 
> Btw, mlx5 does keep the flag even when we fail to write timestamp
> information..... I feel like it might be a good idea to add a warning in
> the core stack if both SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP and SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS are set but
> the skb is consumed without skb_hwtstamps(skb) being written by the
> driver before consuming the skb.
> 

I was thinking the check would happen much earlier, i.e. the moment we
exit the driver xmit routines it would check whether SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS
is set. This would be well before any actual Tx timestamp was acquired.
Its basically a "if we set SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP and you didn't set
IN_PROGRESS then we know you didn't even start a timestamp request, so
you must have been busy"

It might not be workable because I think the IN_PROGRESS flag is used
for another purpose. I tried to read the documentation for it in
Documentation, but I got confused a bit. I'm going to go through the
code and see what places actually check this flag.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists