Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 00/20] Introducing P4TC

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>]

Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com> writes:

>> > We use the skip_sw and skip_hw knobs in tc to indicate whether a
>> > policy is targeting hw or sw. Not sure if you are familiar with it but its
>> > been around (and deployed) for a few years now. So a P4 program
>> > policy can target either.
>>
>> I know. So the only reason the kernel ABI needs to be extended with P4
>> objects is to be able to pass the same commands to hardware. The whole
>> kernel dataplane could be implemented as a BPF program, correct?
>>
>
> It's more than an ABI (although that is important as well).
> It is about reuse of the infra which provides a transparent symbiosis
> between hardware offload and software that has matured over time: For
> example, you can take a pipeline or a table or actions (lately) and
> split them between hardware and software transparently, etc. To
> re-iterate, we are reusing and plugging into a proven and deployed
> mechanism which enables our goal (of HW + SW scripting of arbitrary
> P4-enabled datapaths which are functionally equivalent).

But you're doing this in a way that completely ignores the existing
ecosystem for creating programmable software datapaths in the kernel
(i.e., eBPF/XDP) in favour of adding *yet another* interpreter to the
kernel.

In particular, completely excluding the XDP from this is misguided.
Programmable networking in Linux operates at three layers:

- HW: for stuff that's supported and practical there
- XDP: software fast-path for high-performance bits that can't go into HW
- TC/rest of stack: SW slow path for functional equivalence

I can see P4 playing a role as a higher-level data plane definition
language even for Linux SW stacks, but let's have it integrate with the
full ecosystem, not be its own little island in a corner...

-Toke