lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:36:36 +0000
From: "Vyavahare, Tushar" <tushar.vyavahare@...el.com>
To: "Fijalkowski, Maciej" <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
CC: "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "bjorn@...nel.org" <bjorn@...nel.org>, "Karlsson,
 Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>, "jonathan.lemon@...il.com"
	<jonathan.lemon@...il.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>, "daniel@...earbox.net"
	<daniel@...earbox.net>, "Sarkar, Tirthendu" <tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/xsk: Enhance batch size support
 with dynamic configurations



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fijalkowski, Maciej <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:11 PM
> To: Vyavahare, Tushar <tushar.vyavahare@...el.com>
> Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; bjorn@...nel.org;
> Karlsson, Magnus <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>;
> jonathan.lemon@...il.com; davem@...emloft.net; kuba@...nel.org;
> pabeni@...hat.com; ast@...nel.org; daniel@...earbox.net; Sarkar,
> Tirthendu <tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/xsk: Enhance batch size support
> with dynamic configurations
> 
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:20:48PM +0000, Tushar Vyavahare wrote:
> > Introduce dynamic adjustment capabilities for fill_size, comp_size,
> > tx_size, and rx_size parameters to support larger batch sizes beyond
> > the
> 
> you are only introducing fill_size and comp_size to xsk_umem_info. The latter
> two seem to be in place.
> 

I will do it.

> > previous 2K limit.
> >
> > Update HW_SW_MAX_RING_SIZE test cases to evaluate AF_XDP's
> robustness
> > by pushing hardware and software ring sizes to their limits. This test
> > ensures AF_XDP's reliability amidst potential producer/consumer
> > throttling due to maximum ring utilization.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tushar Vyavahare <tushar.vyavahare@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c | 26
> > ++++++++++++++++++------  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h |
> > 2 ++
> >  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c
> > index 088df53869e8..5b049f0296e6 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c
> > @@ -196,6 +196,12 @@ static int xsk_configure_umem(struct ifobject
> *ifobj, struct xsk_umem_info *umem
> >  	};
> >  	int ret;
> >
> > +	if (umem->fill_size)
> > +		cfg.fill_size = umem->fill_size;
> > +
> > +	if (umem->comp_size)
> > +		cfg.comp_size = umem->comp_size;
> > +
> >  	if (umem->unaligned_mode)
> >  		cfg.flags |= XDP_UMEM_UNALIGNED_CHUNK_FLAG;
> >
> > @@ -265,6 +271,10 @@ static int __xsk_configure_socket(struct
> xsk_socket_info *xsk, struct xsk_umem_i
> >  		cfg.bind_flags |= XDP_SHARED_UMEM;
> >  	if (ifobject->mtu > MAX_ETH_PKT_SIZE)
> >  		cfg.bind_flags |= XDP_USE_SG;
> > +	if (umem->fill_size)
> > +		cfg.tx_size = umem->fill_size;
> > +	if (umem->comp_size)
> > +		cfg.rx_size = umem->comp_size;
> 
> how is the fq related to txq ? and cq to rxq? shouldn't this be fq-rxq and cq-
> txq. What is the intent here? In the end they are the same in your test.
> 

Yes, you are correct, updating code accordingly.

> >
> >  	txr = ifobject->tx_on ? &xsk->tx : NULL;
> >  	rxr = ifobject->rx_on ? &xsk->rx : NULL; @@ -1616,7 +1626,7 @@
> > static void xsk_populate_fill_ring(struct xsk_umem_info *umem, struct
> pkt_stream
> >  	if (umem->num_frames < XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS)
> >  		buffers_to_fill = umem->num_frames;
> >  	else
> > -		buffers_to_fill = XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS;
> > +		buffers_to_fill = umem->fill_size;
> >
> >  	ret = xsk_ring_prod__reserve(&umem->fq, buffers_to_fill, &idx);
> >  	if (ret != buffers_to_fill)
> > @@ -2445,7 +2455,7 @@ static int testapp_hw_sw_min_ring_size(struct
> > test_spec *test)
> >
> >  static int testapp_hw_sw_max_ring_size(struct test_spec *test)  {
> > -	u32 max_descs = XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS * 2;
> > +	u32 max_descs = XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS * 4;
> >  	int ret;
> >
> >  	test->set_ring = true;
> > @@ -2453,7 +2463,8 @@ static int testapp_hw_sw_max_ring_size(struct
> test_spec *test)
> >  	test->ifobj_tx->ring.tx_pending = test->ifobj_tx-
> >ring.tx_max_pending;
> >  	test->ifobj_tx->ring.rx_pending  = test->ifobj_tx-
> >ring.rx_max_pending;
> >  	test->ifobj_rx->umem->num_frames = max_descs;
> > -	test->ifobj_rx->xsk->rxqsize = max_descs;
> 
> rxqsize is only used for setting xsk_socket_config::rx_size ?
> 

Initially, we used the rxqsize field from the xsk_socket object, directly
assigning max_descs to it and then using this value to set cfg.rx_size.
However, we are now shifted to a different approach for test,  where we are
setting cfg.rx_size based on the comp_size from the umem object, provided
that umem->fill_size is true.

> > +	test->ifobj_rx->umem->fill_size = max_descs;
> > +	test->ifobj_rx->umem->comp_size = max_descs;
> >  	test->ifobj_tx->xsk->batch_size =
> XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS;
> >  	test->ifobj_rx->xsk->batch_size =
> XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS;
> >
> > @@ -2461,9 +2472,12 @@ static int testapp_hw_sw_max_ring_size(struct
> test_spec *test)
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >
> > -	/* Set batch_size to 4095 */
> > -	test->ifobj_tx->xsk->batch_size = max_descs - 1;
> > -	test->ifobj_rx->xsk->batch_size = max_descs - 1;
> > +	/* Set batch_size to 8152 for testing, as the ice HW ignores the 3
> lowest bits when updating
> > +	 * the Rx HW tail register.
> 
> i would wrap the comment to 80 chars but that's personal taste.
> 

I will do it.

> > +	 */
> > +	test->ifobj_tx->xsk->batch_size = test->ifobj_tx->ring.tx_max_pending
> - 8;
> > +	test->ifobj_rx->xsk->batch_size = test->ifobj_tx->ring.tx_max_pending
> - 8;
> > +	pkt_stream_replace(test, max_descs, MIN_PKT_SIZE);
> >  	return testapp_validate_traffic(test);  }
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h
> > index 906de5fab7a3..885c948c5d83 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h
> > @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ struct xsk_umem_info {
> >  	void *buffer;
> >  	u32 frame_size;
> >  	u32 base_addr;
> > +	u32 fill_size;
> > +	u32 comp_size;
> >  	bool unaligned_mode;
> >  };
> >
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ