[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <838605ca-3071-4158-b271-1073500cbbd7@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 22:35:51 +0000
From: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@...dia.com>
CC: "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"kbusch@...nel.org" <kbusch@...nel.org>, "axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "aurelien.aptel@...il.com"
<aurelien.aptel@...il.com>, Shai Malin <smalin@...dia.com>,
"malin1024@...il.com" <malin1024@...il.com>, Or Gerlitz
<ogerlitz@...dia.com>, Yoray Zack <yorayz@...dia.com>, Boris Pismenny
<borisp@...dia.com>, Gal Shalom <galshalom@...dia.com>, Max Gurtovoy
<mgurtovoy@...dia.com>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v24 00/20] nvme-tcp receive offloads
On 4/7/2024 3:21 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>
> On 06/04/2024 8:45, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> Doesn't apply, again, unfortunately.
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:36:57 +0000 Aurelien Aptel wrote:
>>> Testing
>>> =======
>>> This series was tested on ConnectX-7 HW using various configurations
>>> of IO sizes, queue depths, MTUs, and with both the SPDK and kernel
>>> NVMe-TCP
>>> targets.
>> About testing, what do you have in terms of a testing setup?
>> As you said this is similar to the TLS offload:
>>
>>> Note:
>>> These offloads are similar in nature to the packet-based NIC TLS
>>> offloads,
>>> which are already upstream (see net/tls/tls_device.c).
>>> You can read more about TLS offload here:
>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/tls-offload.html
>> and our experience trying to maintain and extend the very much used SW
>> kernel TLS implementation in presence of the device offload is mixed :(
>> We can't test it, we break it, get CVEs for it :( In all fairness
>
> Especially when nvme-tcp can also run on tls, but that is incompatible with
> this offload at the moment (I've told the nvidia folks that I do not expect
> this incompatibility to be permanent).
>
>> the inline offload is probably not as bad as the crypto accelerator
>> path, but still it breaks. So assuming that this gets all the necessary
>> acks can we expect you to plug some testing into the netdev CI so that
>> we see whether any incoming change is breaking this offload?
>
> Agree, also given that there is an effort to extend blktests to run on
> real controllers, perhaps we should add a few tests there as well?
blktests seems to be the right framework to add all the testcases to
cover the targeted subsystem(s) for this patchset. Daniel from Suse has
already posted an RFC (see [1]) to add support for blktests so we can
use real controllers for better test coverage. We will be discussing
that at LSFMM session this year in detail.
With this support in the blktest framework, we can definitely generate
right test-coverage for the tcp-offload that can be run by anyone who
has this H/W. Just like I run NVMe tests on the code going from NVMe
tree to block tree for every pull request, we are planning to run new
nvme tcp offload specific tests regularly on NVMe tree. We will be happy
to provide the H/W to distros who are supporting this feature in order
to make testing easier for others as well.
Hope this answers any questions regrading ongoing testing on this
patchset when this code is merged.
-ck
[1] https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2024-March/046056.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists