| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB58308DE8330F4CDE6A954534D8132@PH0PR11MB5830.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 07:08:32 +0000
From: "Song, Yoong Siang" <yoong.siang.song@...el.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
CC: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Willem de Bruijn
<willemb@...gle.com>, "Bezdeka, Florian" <florian.bezdeka@...mens.com>,
Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Bjorn Topel <bjorn@...nel.org>, "Karlsson, Magnus"
<magnus.karlsson@...el.com>, "Fijalkowski, Maciej"
<maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer
<hawk@...nel.org>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, "Damato, Joe"
<jdamato@...tly.com>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Xuan Zhuo
<xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, "Daniel
Jurgens" <danielj@...dia.com>, Amritha Nambiar <amritha.nambiar@...el.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh
<kpsingh@...nel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa
<jolsa@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Alexandre Torgue
<alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, "Maxime
Coquelin" <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, "Nguyen, Anthony L"
<anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "Kitszel, Przemyslaw"
<przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com"
<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org"
<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, "xdp-hints@...-project.net"
<xdp-hints@...-project.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/4] selftests/bpf: Add Launch Time request to
xdp_hw_metadata
On Wednesday, January 8, 2025 12:58 AM, Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com> wrote:
>On 01/06, Song Yoong Siang wrote:
>> Add Launch Time hw offload request to xdp_hw_metadata. User can configure
>> the delta of launch time to HW RX-time by using "-l" argument. The default
>> delta is 100,000,000 nanosecond.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Song Yoong Siang <yoong.siang.song@...el.com>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c
>b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c
>> index 6f7b15d6c6ed..795c1d14e02d 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>> * - UDP 9091 packets trigger TX reply
>> * - TX HW timestamp is requested and reported back upon completion
>> * - TX checksum is requested
>> + * - TX launch time HW offload is requested for transmission
>> */
>>
>> #include <test_progs.h>
>> @@ -64,6 +65,8 @@ int rxq;
>> bool skip_tx;
>> __u64 last_hw_rx_timestamp;
>> __u64 last_xdp_rx_timestamp;
>> +__u64 last_launch_time;
>> +__u64 launch_time_delta_to_hw_rx_timestamp = 100000000; /* 0.1 second */
>>
>> void test__fail(void) { /* for network_helpers.c */ }
>>
>> @@ -298,6 +301,8 @@ static bool complete_tx(struct xsk *xsk, clockid_t
>clock_id)
>> if (meta->completion.tx_timestamp) {
>> __u64 ref_tstamp = gettime(clock_id);
>>
>> + print_tstamp_delta("HW Launch-time", "HW TX-complete-time",
>> + last_launch_time, meta-
>>completion.tx_timestamp);
>> print_tstamp_delta("HW TX-complete-time", "User TX-complete-
>time",
>> meta->completion.tx_timestamp, ref_tstamp);
>> print_tstamp_delta("XDP RX-time", "User TX-complete-time",
>> @@ -395,6 +400,14 @@ static void ping_pong(struct xsk *xsk, void *rx_packet,
>clockid_t clock_id)
>> xsk, ntohs(udph->check), ntohs(want_csum),
>> meta->request.csum_start, meta->request.csum_offset);
>>
>> + /* Set the value of launch time */
>> + meta->flags |= XDP_TXMD_FLAGS_LAUNCH_TIME;
>> + meta->request.launch_time = last_hw_rx_timestamp +
>> + launch_time_delta_to_hw_rx_timestamp;
>> + last_launch_time = meta->request.launch_time;
>> + print_tstamp_delta("HW RX-time", "HW Launch-time",
>last_hw_rx_timestamp,
>> + meta->request.launch_time);
>> +
>> memcpy(data, rx_packet, len); /* don't share umem chunk for simplicity */
>> tx_desc->options |= XDP_TX_METADATA;
>> tx_desc->len = len;
>> @@ -402,10 +415,14 @@ static void ping_pong(struct xsk *xsk, void *rx_packet,
>clockid_t clock_id)
>> xsk_ring_prod__submit(&xsk->tx, 1);
>> }
>>
>> +#define SLEEP_PER_ITERATION_IN_US 10
>> +#define SLEEP_PER_ITERATION_IN_NS (SLEEP_PER_ITERATION_IN_US * 1000)
>> +#define MAX_ITERATION(x) (((x) / SLEEP_PER_ITERATION_IN_NS) + 500)
>> static int verify_metadata(struct xsk *rx_xsk, int rxq, int server_fd, clockid_t
>clock_id)
>> {
>> const struct xdp_desc *rx_desc;
>> struct pollfd fds[rxq + 1];
>> + int max_iterations;
>> __u64 comp_addr;
>> __u64 addr;
>> __u32 idx = 0;
>> @@ -418,6 +435,9 @@ static int verify_metadata(struct xsk *rx_xsk, int rxq, int
>server_fd, clockid_t
>> fds[i].revents = 0;
>> }
>>
>> + /* Calculate max iterations to wait for transmit completion */
>> + max_iterations =
>MAX_ITERATION(launch_time_delta_to_hw_rx_timestamp);
>> +
>> fds[rxq].fd = server_fd;
>> fds[rxq].events = POLLIN;
>> fds[rxq].revents = 0;
>> @@ -477,10 +497,10 @@ static int verify_metadata(struct xsk *rx_xsk, int rxq,
>int server_fd, clockid_t
>> if (ret)
>> printf("kick_tx ret=%d\n", ret);
>>
>
>[..]
>
>> - for (int j = 0; j < 500; j++) {
>> + for (int j = 0; j < max_iterations; j++) {
>> if (complete_tx(xsk, clock_id))
>> break;
>> - usleep(10);
>> +
> usleep(SLEEP_PER_ITERATION_IN_US);
>
>nit: instead of doing MAX_ITERATION/max_iterations, can we simplify this
>to the following?
>
>static u64 now(void)
>{
> clock_gettime(...);
> return ts.tv_sec * NSEC_PER_SEC + ts.tv_nsec;
>}
>
>/* wait 5 seconds + cover launch time */
>deadline = now() + 5 * NSEC_PER_SEC + launch_time_delta_to_hw_rx_timestamp;
>while (true) {
> if (complete_tx())
> break;
> if (now() >= deadline)
> break;
> usleep(10);
>}
>
>It is a bit more readable than converting time to wait to the
>iterations..
Agree that your code is more readable.
I will use your suggestion in next version.
Thanks & Regards
Siang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists