Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Hi!
I'm trying to build a network device driver supporting a very large MTU (around 64K)
on top of an infiniband connection, and I've hit a couple of issues I'd
appreciate some feedback on:

1. On the send side,
   I've set NETIF_F_SG, but hardware does not support checksum offloading,
   and I see "dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature" warning,
   and I seem to be getting large packets all in one chunk.
   The reason I've set NETIF_F_SG, is because I'm concerned that under real life
   stress Linux won't be able to allocate 64K of continuous memory.

   Is this concern of mine valid? I saw in-tree drivers allocating at least 8K.
   What's the best way to enable S/G on send side?
   Is checksum offloading really required for S/G?

2. On the receive side, what's the best/right way to create an skb that
   is larger than PAGE_SIZE?
   Do I allocate with alloc_page and fill in nr_frags with skb_fill_page_desc?
   Some drivers seem to fill in frag_list - which is better?
   I see than even skb_put only works properly on linear skb.
   What are the helpers legal for fragmented skb?

Suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:47:05 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il> wrote:

> Hi!
> I'm trying to build a network device driver supporting a very large MTU (around 64K)
> on top of an infiniband connection, and I've hit a couple of issues I'd
> appreciate some feedback on:
> 
> 1. On the send side,
>    I've set NETIF_F_SG, but hardware does not support checksum offloading,
>    and I see "dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature" warning,
>    and I seem to be getting large packets all in one chunk.
>    The reason I've set NETIF_F_SG, is because I'm concerned that under real life
>    stress Linux won't be able to allocate 64K of continuous memory.
> 
>    Is this concern of mine valid? I saw in-tree drivers allocating at least 8K.
>    What's the best way to enable S/G on send side?
>    Is checksum offloading really required for S/G?

Yes, in the current implementation, Linux needs checksum offload. But there
is no reason, your driver can't compute the checksum in software.

> 2. On the receive side, what's the best/right way to create an skb that
>    is larger than PAGE_SIZE?
>    Do I allocate with alloc_page and fill in nr_frags with skb_fill_page_desc?
>    Some drivers seem to fill in frag_list - which is better?
>    I see than even skb_put only works properly on linear skb.


Allocating large buffers is problematic on busy systems.
See lastest e1000 or sky2 that use frag_list.

>    What are the helpers legal for fragmented skb?
Read the source. Setting up fragmented buffers has less helper
functions, but isn't that hard.

-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:47:05 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il> wrote:

> Hi!
> I'm trying to build a network device driver supporting a very large MTU (around 64K)
> on top of an infiniband connection, and I've hit a couple of issues I'd
> appreciate some feedback on:
> 
> 1. On the send side,
>    I've set NETIF_F_SG, but hardware does not support checksum offloading,
>    and I see "dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature" warning,
>    and I seem to be getting large packets all in one chunk.
>    The reason I've set NETIF_F_SG, is because I'm concerned that under real life
>    stress Linux won't be able to allocate 64K of continuous memory.
> 
>    Is this concern of mine valid? I saw in-tree drivers allocating at least 8K.
>    What's the best way to enable S/G on send side?
>    Is checksum offloading really required for S/G?

Yes, in the current implementation, Linux needs checksum offload. But there
is no reason, your driver can't compute the checksum in software.

> 2. On the receive side, what's the best/right way to create an skb that
>    is larger than PAGE_SIZE?
>    Do I allocate with alloc_page and fill in nr_frags with skb_fill_page_desc?
>    Some drivers seem to fill in frag_list - which is better?
>    I see than even skb_put only works properly on linear skb.


Allocating large buffers is problematic on busy systems.
See lastest e1000 or sky2 that use frag_list.

>    What are the helpers legal for fragmented skb?
Read the source. Setting up fragmented buffers has less helper
functions, but isn't that hard.

-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:47:05 +0200
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> 
> > Hi!
> > I'm trying to build a network device driver supporting a very large MTU (around 64K)
> > on top of an infiniband connection, and I've hit a couple of issues I'd
> > appreciate some feedback on:
> > 
> > 1. On the send side,
> >    I've set NETIF_F_SG, but hardware does not support checksum offloading,
> >    and I see "dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature" warning,
> >    and I seem to be getting large packets all in one chunk.
> >    The reason I've set NETIF_F_SG, is because I'm concerned that under real life
> >    stress Linux won't be able to allocate 64K of continuous memory.
> > 
> >    Is this concern of mine valid? I saw in-tree drivers allocating at least 8K.
> >    What's the best way to enable S/G on send side?
> >    Is checksum offloading really required for S/G?
> 
> Yes, in the current implementation, Linux needs checksum offload. But there
> is no reason, your driver can't compute the checksum in software.

Are there drivers that do this already? Couldn't find any such beast ...

I'm worried whether an extra pass over data won't eat up all of
the performance gains I get from the large MTU ...

> >    What are the helpers legal for fragmented skb?

BTW, I found skb_put_frags in sky2 which seems generic enough - I even wander
why isn't this in net/core.

Thanks!

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:43:30 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il> wrote:

> Quoting r. Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>:
> > Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> > 
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:47:05 +0200
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi!
> > > I'm trying to build a network device driver supporting a very large MTU (around 64K)
> > > on top of an infiniband connection, and I've hit a couple of issues I'd
> > > appreciate some feedback on:
> > > 
> > > 1. On the send side,
> > >    I've set NETIF_F_SG, but hardware does not support checksum offloading,
> > >    and I see "dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature" warning,
> > >    and I seem to be getting large packets all in one chunk.
> > >    The reason I've set NETIF_F_SG, is because I'm concerned that under real life
> > >    stress Linux won't be able to allocate 64K of continuous memory.
> > > 
> > >    Is this concern of mine valid? I saw in-tree drivers allocating at least 8K.
> > >    What's the best way to enable S/G on send side?
> > >    Is checksum offloading really required for S/G?
> > 
> > Yes, in the current implementation, Linux needs checksum offload. But there
> > is no reason, your driver can't compute the checksum in software.
>
> Are there drivers that do this already? Couldn't find any such beast ...

dev_queue_xmit() does it, all you need to do in your driver is:
	
	/* If packet is not checksummed and device does not support
	 * checksumming for this protocol, complete checksumming here.
	 */
	if (skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_PARTIAL) {
	      	if (skb_checksum_help(skb))
	      		goto error_recovery
	}


> I'm worried whether an extra pass over data won't eat up all of
> the performance gains I get from the large MTU ...

Yup, the cost is in touching the data, not in the copy.

> > >    What are the helpers legal for fragmented skb?
> 
> BTW, I found skb_put_frags in sky2 which seems generic enough - I even wander
> why isn't this in net/core.
> 

Only because I just wrote it for my needs. If you need it, then it
can be moved to skbuff.c



-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>:
> > > > I'm trying to build a network device driver supporting a very large MTU
> > > > (around 64K) on top of an infiniband connection, and I've hit a couple
> > > > of issues I'd appreciate some feedback on:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. On the send side,
> > > >    I've set NETIF_F_SG, but hardware does not support checksum
> > > >    offloading, and I see "dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature"
> > > >    warning, and I seem to be getting large packets all in one chunk.
> > > >    The reason I've set NETIF_F_SG, is because I'm concerned that under
> > > >    real life stress Linux won't be able to allocate 64K of continuous
> > > >    memory.
> > > > 
> > > >    Is this concern of mine valid? I saw in-tree drivers allocating at
> > > >    least 8K.  What's the best way to enable S/G on send side?  Is
> > > >    checksum offloading really required for S/G?
> > > 
> > > Yes, in the current implementation, Linux needs checksum offload. But
> > > there is no reason, your driver can't compute the checksum in software.
> > >
> > I'm worried whether an extra pass over data won't eat up all of
> > the performance gains I get from the large MTU ...
> 
> Yup, the cost is in touching the data, not in the copy.

Maybe I can patch linux to allow SG without checksum?
Dave, maybe you could drop a hint or two on whether this is worthwhile
and what are the issues that need addressing to make this work?

I imagine it's not just the matter of changing net/core/dev.c :).

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Roland Dreier]

    Michael> Maybe I can patch linux to allow SG without checksum?
    Michael> Dave, maybe you could drop a hint or two on whether this
    Michael> is worthwhile and what are the issues that need
    Michael> addressing to make this work?

What do you really gain by allowing SG without checksum?  Someone has
to do the checksum anyway, so I don't see that much difference between
doing it in the networking core before passing the data to/from the
driver, or down in the driver itself.

 - R.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
>     Michael> Maybe I can patch linux to allow SG without checksum?
>     Michael> Dave, maybe you could drop a hint or two on whether this
>     Michael> is worthwhile and what are the issues that need
>     Michael> addressing to make this work?
> 
> What do you really gain by allowing SG without checksum?  Someone has
> to do the checksum anyway, so I don't see that much difference between
> doing it in the networking core before passing the data to/from the
> driver, or down in the driver itself.

My guess was, an extra pass over data is likely to be expensive - dirtying the
cache if nothing else. But I do plan to measure that, and see.

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Roland Dreier]

    Michael> My guess was, an extra pass over data is likely to be
    Michael> expensive - dirtying the cache if nothing else. But I do
    Michael> plan to measure that, and see.

I don't get it -- where's the extra pass?  If you can't compute the
checksum on the NIC then you have to compute sometime it on the CPU
before passing the data to the NIC.

 - R.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[David Miller]

From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:33:46 -0700

>     Michael> My guess was, an extra pass over data is likely to be
>     Michael> expensive - dirtying the cache if nothing else. But I do
>     Michael> plan to measure that, and see.
> 
> I don't get it -- where's the extra pass?  If you can't compute the
> checksum on the NIC then you have to compute sometime it on the CPU
> before passing the data to the NIC.

Also, if you don't do checksumming on the card we MUST copy
the data (be it from a user buffer, or from a filesystem page
cache page) into a private buffer since if the data changes
the checksum would become invalid, as I mentioned in another
email earlier.

Therefore, since we have to copy anyways, it always is better
to checksum in parallel with the copy.

So the whole idea of SG without hw-checksum support is without
much merit at all.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Roland Dreier]

    David> Also, if you don't do checksumming on the card we MUST copy
    David> the data (be it from a user buffer, or from a filesystem
    David> page cache page) into a private buffer since if the data
    David> changes the checksum would become invalid, as I mentioned
    David> in another email earlier.

Yes, I get that now -- I replied to Michael's email before I read yours.

    David> Therefore, since we have to copy anyways, it always is
    David> better to checksum in parallel with the copy.

Yes.

    David> So the whole idea of SG without hw-checksum support is
    David> without much merit at all.

Well, on IB it is possible to implement a netdevice (IPoIB connected
mode, I assume that's what Michael is working on) with a large MTU
(64KB is a number thrown around, but really there's not any limit) but
no HW checksum capability.  Doing that in a practical way means we
need to allow non-linear skbs to be passed in.

On the other hand I'm not sure how useful such a netdevice would be --
will non-sendfile() paths generate big packets even if the MTU is 64KB?

Maybe GSO gives us all the real advantages of this anyway?

 - R.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[David Miller]

From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:42:20 -0700

> On the other hand I'm not sure how useful such a netdevice would be --
> will non-sendfile() paths generate big packets even if the MTU is 64KB?

non-sendfile() paths will generate big packets just fine, as long
as the application is providing that much data.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Roland Dreier]

    David> non-sendfile() paths will generate big packets just fine,
    David> as long as the application is providing that much data.

OK, cool.  Will the big packets be non-linear skbs?

Because then it would make sense for a device with a huge MTU to want
to accept them without linearizing them, even if it had to copy them
to checksum the data.  Otherwise with fragmented memory it would be
impossible to handle such big packets at all.

 - R.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[David Miller]

From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:49:09 -0700

>     David> non-sendfile() paths will generate big packets just fine,
>     David> as long as the application is providing that much data.
> 
> OK, cool.  Will the big packets be non-linear skbs?

If you had SG enabled (and thus checksumming offload too) then yes
you'll get a non-linear SKB.  Otherwise, without SG, you'll get a
fully linear SKB.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[David Miller]

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:13:38 +0200

> Maybe I can patch linux to allow SG without checksum?
> Dave, maybe you could drop a hint or two on whether this is worthwhile
> and what are the issues that need addressing to make this work?
> 
> I imagine it's not just the matter of changing net/core/dev.c :).

You can't, it's a quality of implementation issue.  We sendfile()
pages directly out of the filesystem page cache without any
blocking of modifications to the page contents, and the only way
that works is if the card computes the checksum for us.

If we sendfile() a page directly, we must compute a correct checksum
no matter what the contents.  We can't do this on the cpu before the
data hits the device because another thread of execution can go in and
modify the page contents which would invalidate the checksum and thus
invalidating the packet.  We cannot allow this.

Blocking modifications is too expensive, so that's not an option
either.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:13:38 +0200
> 
> > Maybe I can patch linux to allow SG without checksum?
> > Dave, maybe you could drop a hint or two on whether this is worthwhile
> > and what are the issues that need addressing to make this work?
> > 
> > I imagine it's not just the matter of changing net/core/dev.c :).
> 
> You can't, it's a quality of implementation issue.  We sendfile()
> pages directly out of the filesystem page cache without any
> blocking of modifications to the page contents, and the only way
> that works is if the card computes the checksum for us.
> 
> If we sendfile() a page directly, we must compute a correct checksum
> no matter what the contents.  We can't do this on the cpu before the
> data hits the device because another thread of execution can go in and
> modify the page contents which would invalidate the checksum and thus
> invalidating the packet.  We cannot allow this.
> 
> Blocking modifications is too expensive, so that's not an option
> either.
> 

But copying still works fine, does it not?
Dave, could you clarify this please?

ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
                     size_t size, int flags)
{
        ssize_t res;
        struct sock *sk = sock->sk;

        if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
            !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
                return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);


So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:13:38 +0200
> 
> > Maybe I can patch linux to allow SG without checksum?
> > Dave, maybe you could drop a hint or two on whether this is worthwhile
> > and what are the issues that need addressing to make this work?
> > 
> > I imagine it's not just the matter of changing net/core/dev.c :).
> 
> You can't, it's a quality of implementation issue.  We sendfile()
> pages directly out of the filesystem page cache without any
> blocking of modifications to the page contents, and the only way
> that works is if the card computes the checksum for us.
> 
> If we sendfile() a page directly, we must compute a correct checksum
> no matter what the contents.  We can't do this on the cpu before the
> data hits the device because another thread of execution can go in and
> modify the page contents which would invalidate the checksum and thus
> invalidating the packet.  We cannot allow this.
> 
> Blocking modifications is too expensive, so that's not an option
> either.
> 

But copying still works fine, does it not?
Dave, could you clarify this please?

ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
                     size_t size, int flags)
{
        ssize_t res;
        struct sock *sk = sock->sk;

        if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
            !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
                return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);


So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Steven Whitehouse]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:05:04AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> > Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> > 
> > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
> > Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:13:38 +0200
> > 
> > > Maybe I can patch linux to allow SG without checksum?
> > > Dave, maybe you could drop a hint or two on whether this is worthwhile
> > > and what are the issues that need addressing to make this work?
> > > 
> > > I imagine it's not just the matter of changing net/core/dev.c :).
> > 
> > You can't, it's a quality of implementation issue.  We sendfile()
> > pages directly out of the filesystem page cache without any
> > blocking of modifications to the page contents, and the only way
> > that works is if the card computes the checksum for us.
> > 
> > If we sendfile() a page directly, we must compute a correct checksum
> > no matter what the contents.  We can't do this on the cpu before the
> > data hits the device because another thread of execution can go in and
> > modify the page contents which would invalidate the checksum and thus
> > invalidating the packet.  We cannot allow this.
> > 
> > Blocking modifications is too expensive, so that's not an option
> > either.
> > 
>

I would argue that SG does make sense without checksum for protocols that
don't need/use a checksum. DECnet for example could do zero-copy without
caring about the checksum since it doesn't have one. One of these days
I'll get around to writing that bit of code :-)
 
> But copying still works fine, does it not?
> Dave, could you clarify this please?
> 
> ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
>                      size_t size, int flags)
> {
>         ssize_t res;
>         struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> 
>         if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
>             !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
>                 return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> 
> 
> So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
>
I agree with that analysis,

Steve.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>:
> > ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
> >                      size_t size, int flags)
> > {
> >         ssize_t res;
> >         struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > 
> >         if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
> >             !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
> >                 return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> > 
> > 
> > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> >
> I agree with that analysis,

So, would you Ack something like the following then?

======================

Enabling NETIF_F_SG without NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM actually seems to work fine by
doing an old-fashioned data copy in tcp_sendpage.
And for devices that do not calculate IP checksum in hardware (e.g. InfiniBand)
calculating the checksum for all packets in network driver is worse than have
the CPU piggyback the checksum compitation with the copy process.
Finally, note that NETIF_F_SG is necessary to be able to allocate skbs >
PAGE_SIZE on busy systems.

So, let's allow that combination, again, for drivers that want it.

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@mellanox.co.il>

---

diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index d4a1ec3..2d731a0 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -2930,14 +2930,6 @@ #endif
 		}
  	}
 
-	/* Fix illegal SG+CSUM combinations. */
-	if ((dev->features & NETIF_F_SG) &&
-	    !(dev->features & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM)) {
-		printk(KERN_NOTICE "%s: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.\n",
-		       dev->name);
-		dev->features &= ~NETIF_F_SG;
-	}
-
 	/* TSO requires that SG is present as well. */
 	if ((dev->features & NETIF_F_TSO) &&
 	    !(dev->features & NETIF_F_SG)) {

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Steven Whitehouse]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 05:01:03PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>:
> > > ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
> > >                      size_t size, int flags)
> > > {
> > >         ssize_t res;
> > >         struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > > 
> > >         if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
> > >             !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
> > >                 return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> > >
> > I agree with that analysis,
> 
> So, would you Ack something like the following then?
>

In so far as I'm able to ack it, then yes, but with the following
caveats: that you also need to look at the tcp code's checks for
NETIF_F_SG (aside from the interface to tcp_sendpage which I think
we've agreed is ok) and ensure that this patch will not change their
behaviour, and here I'm thinking of the test in net/ipv4/tcp.c:select_size()
in particular - there may be others but thats the only one I can think
of off the top of my head. I think this is what davem was getting at
with his comment about copy & sum for smaller packets.

Also all subject to approval by davem and shemminger of course :-)

My general feeling is that devices should advertise the features that
they actually have and that the protocols should make the decision
as to which ones to use or not depending on the combinations available
(which I think is pretty much your argument).

Steve.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 05:01:03PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Quoting Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>:
> > > > ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
> > > >                      size_t size, int flags)
> > > > {
> > > >         ssize_t res;
> > > >         struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > > > 
> > > >         if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
> > > >             !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
> > > >                 return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > > > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > > > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> > > >
> > > I agree with that analysis,
> > 
> > So, would you Ack something like the following then?
> >
> 
> In so far as I'm able to ack it, then yes, but with the following
> caveats: that you also need to look at the tcp code's checks for
> NETIF_F_SG (aside from the interface to tcp_sendpage which I think
> we've agreed is ok) and ensure that this patch will not change their
> behaviour, and here I'm thinking of the test in net/ipv4/tcp.c:select_size()
> in particular - there may be others but thats the only one I can think
> of off the top of my head. I think this is what davem was getting at
> with his comment about copy & sum for smaller packets.

Will do - thanks for the tips.

> Also all subject to approval by davem and shemminger of course :-)

Goes without saying :)

> My general feeling is that devices should advertise the features that
> they actually have and that the protocols should make the decision
> as to which ones to use or not depending on the combinations available
> (which I think is pretty much your argument).
> 
> Steve.

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:11:38 +0100
Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 05:01:03PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Quoting Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>:
> > > > ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
> > > >                      size_t size, int flags)
> > > > {
> > > >         ssize_t res;
> > > >         struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > > > 
> > > >         if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
> > > >             !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
> > > >                 return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > > > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > > > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> > > >
> > > I agree with that analysis,
> > 
> > So, would you Ack something like the following then?
> >
> 
> In so far as I'm able to ack it, then yes, but with the following
> caveats: that you also need to look at the tcp code's checks for
> NETIF_F_SG (aside from the interface to tcp_sendpage which I think
> we've agreed is ok) and ensure that this patch will not change their
> behaviour, and here I'm thinking of the test in net/ipv4/tcp.c:select_size()
> in particular - there may be others but thats the only one I can think
> of off the top of my head. I think this is what davem was getting at
> with his comment about copy & sum for smaller packets.
> 
> Also all subject to approval by davem and shemminger of course :-)
> 
> My general feeling is that devices should advertise the features that
> they actually have and that the protocols should make the decision
> as to which ones to use or not depending on the combinations available
> (which I think is pretty much your argument).
> 
> Steve.
> 

You might want to try ignoring the check in dev.c and testing
to see if there is a performance gain.  It wouldn't be hard to test
a modified version and validate the performance change.

You could even do what I suggested and use skb_checksum_help()
to do inplace checksumming, as a performance test.


-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:11:38 +0100
> Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 05:01:03PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Quoting Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>:
> > > > > ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
> > > > >                      size_t size, int flags)
> > > > > {
> > > > >         ssize_t res;
> > > > >         struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > > > > 
> > > > >         if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
> > > > >             !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
> > > > >                 return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > > > > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > > > > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> > > > >
> > > > I agree with that analysis,
> > > 
> > > So, would you Ack something like the following then?
> > >
> > 
> > In so far as I'm able to ack it, then yes, but with the following
> > caveats: that you also need to look at the tcp code's checks for
> > NETIF_F_SG (aside from the interface to tcp_sendpage which I think
> > we've agreed is ok) and ensure that this patch will not change their
> > behaviour, and here I'm thinking of the test in net/ipv4/tcp.c:select_size()
> > in particular - there may be others but thats the only one I can think
> > of off the top of my head. I think this is what davem was getting at
> > with his comment about copy & sum for smaller packets.
> > 
> > Also all subject to approval by davem and shemminger of course :-)
> > 
> > My general feeling is that devices should advertise the features that
> > they actually have and that the protocols should make the decision
> > as to which ones to use or not depending on the combinations available
> > (which I think is pretty much your argument).
> > 
> > Steve.
> > 
> 
> You might want to try ignoring the check in dev.c and testing
> to see if there is a performance gain.  It wouldn't be hard to test
> a modified version and validate the performance change.

Yes. With my patch, there is a huge performance gain by increasing MTU to 64K.
And it seems the only way to do this is by S/G.

> You could even do what I suggested and use skb_checksum_help()
> to do inplace checksumming, as a performance test.

I can. But as network algorithmics says (chapter 5)
"Since such bus reads are expensive, the CPU might as well piggyback
the checksum computation with the copy process".

It speaks about onboard the adapter buffers, but memory bus reads are also much slower
than CPU nowdays.  So I think even if this works well in benchmark in real life
single copy should better.

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:11:38 +0100
> Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 05:01:03PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Quoting Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>:
> > > > > ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
> > > > >                      size_t size, int flags)
> > > > > {
> > > > >         ssize_t res;
> > > > >         struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > > > > 
> > > > >         if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
> > > > >             !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
> > > > >                 return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > > > > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > > > > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> > > > >
> > > > I agree with that analysis,
> > > 
> > > So, would you Ack something like the following then?
> > >
> > 
> > In so far as I'm able to ack it, then yes, but with the following
> > caveats: that you also need to look at the tcp code's checks for
> > NETIF_F_SG (aside from the interface to tcp_sendpage which I think
> > we've agreed is ok) and ensure that this patch will not change their
> > behaviour, and here I'm thinking of the test in net/ipv4/tcp.c:select_size()
> > in particular - there may be others but thats the only one I can think
> > of off the top of my head. I think this is what davem was getting at
> > with his comment about copy & sum for smaller packets.
> > 
> > Also all subject to approval by davem and shemminger of course :-)
> > 
> > My general feeling is that devices should advertise the features that
> > they actually have and that the protocols should make the decision
> > as to which ones to use or not depending on the combinations available
> > (which I think is pretty much your argument).
> > 
> > Steve.
> > 
> 
> You might want to try ignoring the check in dev.c and testing
> to see if there is a performance gain.  It wouldn't be hard to test
> a modified version and validate the performance change.

Yes. With my patch, there is a huge performance gain by increasing MTU to 64K.
And it seems the only way to do this is by S/G.

> You could even do what I suggested and use skb_checksum_help()
> to do inplace checksumming, as a performance test.

I can. But as network algorithmics says (chapter 5)
"Since such bus reads are expensive, the CPU might as well piggyback
the checksum computation with the copy process".

It speaks about onboard the adapter buffers, but memory bus reads are also much slower
than CPU nowdays.  So I think even if this works well in benchmark in real life
single copy should better.

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Stephen Hemminger]

O
> > 
> > You might want to try ignoring the check in dev.c and testing
> > to see if there is a performance gain.  It wouldn't be hard to test
> > a modified version and validate the performance change.
> 
> Yes. With my patch, there is a huge performance gain by increasing MTU to 64K.
> And it seems the only way to do this is by S/G.
> 
> > You could even do what I suggested and use skb_checksum_help()
> > to do inplace checksumming, as a performance test.
> 
> I can. But as network algorithmics says (chapter 5)
> "Since such bus reads are expensive, the CPU might as well piggyback
> the checksum computation with the copy process".
> 
> It speaks about onboard the adapter buffers, but memory bus reads are also much slower
> than CPU nowdays.  So I think even if this works well in benchmark in real life
> single copy should better.
> 

The other alternative might be to make copy/checksum code smarter about using
fragments rather than allocating a large buffer. It should avoid second order
allocations (effective size > PAGESIZE).

-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> O
> > > 
> > > You might want to try ignoring the check in dev.c and testing
> > > to see if there is a performance gain.  It wouldn't be hard to test
> > > a modified version and validate the performance change.
> > 
> > Yes. With my patch, there is a huge performance gain by increasing MTU to 64K.
> > And it seems the only way to do this is by S/G.
> > 
> > > You could even do what I suggested and use skb_checksum_help()
> > > to do inplace checksumming, as a performance test.
> > 
> > I can. But as network algorithmics says (chapter 5)
> > "Since such bus reads are expensive, the CPU might as well piggyback
> > the checksum computation with the copy process".
> > 
> > It speaks about onboard the adapter buffers, but memory bus reads are also much slower
> > than CPU nowdays.  So I think even if this works well in benchmark in real life
> > single copy should better.
> > 
> 
> The other alternative might be to make copy/checksum code smarter about using
> fragments rather than allocating a large buffer. It should avoid second order
> allocations (effective size > PAGESIZE).
 
In my testing, it seems quite smart already - once I declare F_SG and clear F_...CSUM
I start getting properly checksummed packets with lots of s/g fragments.
But I'm not catching the drift - an alternative to what this would be?

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[David Miller]

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:23:39 +0200

> With my patch, there is a huge performance gain by increasing MTU to 64K.
> And it seems the only way to do this is by S/G.

Numbers?

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:23:39 +0200
> 
> > With my patch, there is a huge performance gain by increasing MTU to 64K.
> > And it seems the only way to do this is by S/G.
> 
> Numbers?
> 

I created two subnets on top of the same pair infiniband HCAs:

root@sw069 ~]# ifconfig ib0
ib0       Link encap:UNSPEC  HWaddr
00-00-04-04-FE-80-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
          inet addr:12.4.3.69  Bcast:12.255.255.255  Mask:255.0.0.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::202:c902:20:ee45/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:2044  Metric:1
          RX packets:1382531 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:2725206 errors:0 dropped:5 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:128
          RX bytes:71892772 (68.5 MiB)  TX bytes:5290011992 (4.9 GiB)

[root@sw069 ~]# ifconfig ibc0
ibc0      Link encap:UNSPEC  HWaddr
00-03-04-06-FE-80-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
          inet addr:11.4.3.69  Bcast:11.255.255.255  Mask:255.0.0.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::202:c902:20:ee45/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:65484  Metric:1
          RX packets:115647 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:253403 errors:0 dropped:4 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:128
          RX bytes:6014720 (5.7 MiB)  TX bytes:16589589008 (15.4 GiB)

The other side was configured with 12.4.3.68 for MTU 65484
and 11.4.3.68 for MTU 2044. 

And then I just run netperf:
[root@sw069 ~]#
[root@sw069 ~]# /mswg/work/mst/netperf-2.4.2/src/netperf -f M -H 12.4.3.68 -c -C
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 12.4.3.68 (12.4.3.68)
port 0 AF_INET
Recv   Send    Send                          Utilization       Service Demand
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed              Send     Recv     Send    Recv
Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput  local    remote   local   remote
bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    MBytes  /s  % S      % S      us/KB   us/KB

 87380  16384  16384    10.00       286.45   40.20    25.28    5.482   3.448

[root@sw069 ~]# /mswg/work/mst/netperf-2.4.2/src/netperf -f M -H 11.4.3.68
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 11.4.3.68 (11.4.3.68)
port 0 AF_INET
Recv   Send    Send
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    MBytes/sec

 87380  16384  16384    10.01     782.55

This is all very preliminary - but I hope you get the idea -
increasing MTU is very helpful for infiniband, and infiniband adapters
handle large S/G lists without problems, but the verbs
do not include support for IP checksums, so these must be done in software.

So what we would like, is for the infiniband network device to say
"I don't support checksums, I only support S/G" and then for
network layer to do the checksumming for us piggybacking on data copy
at least for cases where it does perform the copy.

Does this makes sense now?

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:23:39 +0200
> 
> > With my patch, there is a huge performance gain by increasing MTU to 64K.
> > And it seems the only way to do this is by S/G.
> 
> Numbers?
> 

I created two subnets on top of the same pair infiniband HCAs:

root@sw069 ~]# ifconfig ib0
ib0       Link encap:UNSPEC  HWaddr
00-00-04-04-FE-80-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
          inet addr:12.4.3.69  Bcast:12.255.255.255  Mask:255.0.0.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::202:c902:20:ee45/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:2044  Metric:1
          RX packets:1382531 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:2725206 errors:0 dropped:5 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:128
          RX bytes:71892772 (68.5 MiB)  TX bytes:5290011992 (4.9 GiB)

[root@sw069 ~]# ifconfig ibc0
ibc0      Link encap:UNSPEC  HWaddr
00-03-04-06-FE-80-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
          inet addr:11.4.3.69  Bcast:11.255.255.255  Mask:255.0.0.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::202:c902:20:ee45/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:65484  Metric:1
          RX packets:115647 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:253403 errors:0 dropped:4 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:128
          RX bytes:6014720 (5.7 MiB)  TX bytes:16589589008 (15.4 GiB)

The other side was configured with 12.4.3.68 for MTU 65484
and 11.4.3.68 for MTU 2044. 

And then I just run netperf:
[root@sw069 ~]#
[root@sw069 ~]# /mswg/work/mst/netperf-2.4.2/src/netperf -f M -H 12.4.3.68 -c -C
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 12.4.3.68 (12.4.3.68)
port 0 AF_INET
Recv   Send    Send                          Utilization       Service Demand
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed              Send     Recv     Send    Recv
Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput  local    remote   local   remote
bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    MBytes  /s  % S      % S      us/KB   us/KB

 87380  16384  16384    10.00       286.45   40.20    25.28    5.482   3.448

[root@sw069 ~]# /mswg/work/mst/netperf-2.4.2/src/netperf -f M -H 11.4.3.68
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 11.4.3.68 (11.4.3.68)
port 0 AF_INET
Recv   Send    Send
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    MBytes/sec

 87380  16384  16384    10.01     782.55

This is all very preliminary - but I hope you get the idea -
increasing MTU is very helpful for infiniband, and infiniband adapters
handle large S/G lists without problems, but the verbs
do not include support for IP checksums, so these must be done in software.

So what we would like, is for the infiniband network device to say
"I don't support checksums, I only support S/G" and then for
network layer to do the checksumming for us piggybacking on data copy
at least for cases where it does perform the copy.

Does this makes sense now?

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[David Miller]

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:12:06 +0200

> Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> > Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> > 
> > Numbers?
> 
> I created two subnets on top of the same pair infiniband HCAs:

I was asking for SG vs. non-SG numbers so I could see proof
that it really does help like you say it will.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:12:06 +0200
> 
> > Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> > > Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> > > 
> > > Numbers?
> > 
> > I created two subnets on top of the same pair infiniband HCAs:
> 
> I was asking for SG vs. non-SG numbers so I could see proof
> that it really does help like you say it will.
> 

Dave, thanks for the clarification.
Please note that ib0 is a non-SG device with MTU 2K,
sorry that I forgot to mention that.


so, to summarize my previous mail:


interface   flags      mtu    bandwidth
ib0         linear(0)  2044   286.45
ibc0        _F_SG      65484  782.55



If I will set both ib0 and ibc0 to 64K MTU, then
benchmark-mode with the same MTU SG is somewhat slower than non-SG 
(I tested this at some point, by some 10%, don't have the numbers at the moment -
do you want to see them?).  I did not claim it is faster to do SG with same MTU
and it is I think clear why linear should be faster for copy *with the same MTU*.
But do you really think that we will be able to allocate
even a single 64K linear skb after the machine has been active for a while?

My assumption is that if I want to reliably get MTU > PAGE_SIZE I must support SG.
Is it the wrong one?

If this assumption is correct, then below is my line of thinking:
- with infiniband we provably get a 2.5x speedup with MTU of 64K vs to 2K.
- to get packets of that size reliably we must declare S/G support
- infiniband verbs do not support IP checksumming
- per network algorithmics, it is better to piggyback checksum calculation
  on copying if copying takes place

For this reason, I would like to define the meaning of S/G set when checksum
bits are all clear as "we support S/G but not checksum, please checksum
for us if you copy data anyway". Alternatively, add a new
NETIF_F_??_CSUM bit to mean this capability.
Does this make sense?

Thanks,

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[David Miller]

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:01:03 +0200

> Quoting Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>:
> > > ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
> > >                      size_t size, int flags)
> > > {
> > >         ssize_t res;
> > >         struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > > 
> > >         if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
> > >             !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
> > >                 return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> > >
> > I agree with that analysis,
> 
> So, would you Ack something like the following then?

I certainly don't.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[David Miller]

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:01:03 +0200

> Quoting Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>:
> > > ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
> > >                      size_t size, int flags)
> > > {
> > >         ssize_t res;
> > >         struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > > 
> > >         if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
> > >             !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
> > >                 return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> > >
> > I agree with that analysis,
> 
> So, would you Ack something like the following then?

I certainly don't.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:01:03 +0200
> 
> > Quoting Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>:
> > > > ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
> > > >                      size_t size, int flags)
> > > > {
> > > >         ssize_t res;
> > > >         struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > > > 
> > > >         if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
> > > >             !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
> > > >                 return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > > > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > > > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> > > >
> > > I agree with that analysis,
> > 
> > So, would you Ack something like the following then?
> 
> I certainly don't.
> 

Dave, sorry, you lost me.
Would a new flag NETIF_F_SW_CSUM be better, to tell network core that device
computes checksums in software, so we should piggyback the checksum
computation with the copy process if possible?

Or is there some other issue?

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:01:03 +0200
> 
> > Quoting Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>:
> > > > ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
> > > >                      size_t size, int flags)
> > > > {
> > > >         ssize_t res;
> > > >         struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > > > 
> > > >         if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
> > > >             !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
> > > >                 return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > > > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > > > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> > > >
> > > I agree with that analysis,
> > 
> > So, would you Ack something like the following then?
> 
> I certainly don't.
> 

Dave, sorry, you lost me.
Would a new flag NETIF_F_SW_CSUM be better, to tell network core that device
computes checksums in software, so we should piggyback the checksum
computation with the copy process if possible?

Or is there some other issue?

-- 
MST

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[David Miller]

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:05:04 +0200

> So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?

Because it's more efficient to copy into a linear destination
buffer of an SKB than page sub-chunks when doing checksum+copy.

Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:05:04 +0200
> 
> > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> 
> Because it's more efficient to copy into a linear destination
> buffer of an SKB than page sub-chunks when doing checksum+copy.
> 

Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously its true as long as you can allocate the skb that big.
I think you won't realistically be able to get 64K in a
linear SKB on a busy system, though, is not that right?

OTOH, having large MTU (e.g. 64K) helps performance a lot since it
reduces receive side processing overhead.

So, if I understand what you are saying correctly,
things do work correctly (just slower for small skb) if NETIF_F_SG is set bug
clear, it seems that all we need to do is drop the following in dev.c:

        /* Fix illegal SG+CSUM combinations. */
        if ((dev->features & NETIF_F_SG) &&
            !(dev->features & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM)) {
                printk(KERN_NOTICE "%s: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.\n",
                       dev->name);
                dev->features &= ~NETIF_F_SG;
        }

is that right?

-- 
MST

Re: [openib-general] Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

[Michael Krause]

At 02:46 AM 10/11/2006, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>Quoting r. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> > Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> >
> > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
> > Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:05:04 +0200
> >
> > > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> >
> > Because it's more efficient to copy into a linear destination
> > buffer of an SKB than page sub-chunks when doing checksum+copy.
> >
>
>Thanks for the explanation.
>Obviously its true as long as you can allocate the skb that big.
>I think you won't realistically be able to get 64K in a
>linear SKB on a busy system, though, is not that right?
>
>OTOH, having large MTU (e.g. 64K) helps performance a lot since it reduces 
>receive side processing overhead.

One thing to keep in mind is while it may help performance in a 
micro-benchmark, the system performance or the QoS impacts to other flows 
can be negatively impacted depending upon implementation.  For example, 
consider multiple messages interleaving (heaven help implementations that 
are not able to interleave multiple messages) on either the transmit or 
receive HCA / RNIC and how the time-to-completion of any message is 
extended out in time as a result of the interleave.  The effective 
throughput in terms of useful units of work can be lower as a result.   The 
same effect can be observed when there are a significant number connections 
in a device being simultaneously processed.

Also, if the copy-checksum is not performed on the processor where the 
application resides, then the performance can also be negatively impacted 
(want to have the right cache hot when initiated or concluded).  While the 
aggregate computational performance of systems may be increasing at a 
significant rate (set aside the per core vs. aggregate core debate), the 
memory performance gains are much less.  If you examine the longer term 
trends, there may be a flattening out of memory performance improvements by 
2009/10 without some major changes in the way controllers and subsystems 
are designed.

Mike 

[RFC] Question about potential problem in net/ipv4/route.c

[Eric Dumazet]

Hi David

While browsing net/ipv4/route.c  I discovered compare_keys() function, and a 
potential bug in it.

static inline int compare_keys(struct flowi *fl1, struct flowi *fl2)
{
        return memcmp(&fl1->nl_u.ip4_u, &fl2->nl_u.ip4_u, 
sizeof(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u)) == 0 &&
               fl1->oif     == fl2->oif &&
               fl1->iif     == fl2->iif;
}


Using memcmp(ptr1, ptr2, sizeof(SOMEFIELD)) is dangerous because 
sizeof(SOMEFIELD) can be larger than the underlying object, because of 
alignment constraints.

In this case, sizeof(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u) is 16, while fl1->nl_u.ip4_u is :

                struct {
                        __u32                   daddr;
                        __u32                   saddr;
                        __u32                   fwmark;
                        __u8                    tos;
                        __u8                    scope;
                } ip4_u;

So 14 bytes are really initialized, and 2 padding bytes might contain random 
values...

So at the very minimum, we should avoid doing the memcmp() including those 
last two bytes : It would be less bugy, and faster too...  (But to get really 
fast comparison, we should do some clever long/int XOR operations to avoid 
many test/branches, like the optim we did in compare_ether_addr())

As shown in profiles, "repz cmpsb" is really a dog... (and its use of 
esi/edi/ecx registers a high pressure for the compiler/optimizer)

Eric

Re: [RFC] Question about potential problem in net/ipv4/route.c

[David Miller]

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:11:18 +0200

> Using memcmp(ptr1, ptr2, sizeof(SOMEFIELD)) is dangerous because 
> sizeof(SOMEFIELD) can be larger than the underlying object, because of 
> alignment constraints.
> 
> In this case, sizeof(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u) is 16, while fl1->nl_u.ip4_u is :
> 
>                 struct {
>                         __u32                   daddr;
>                         __u32                   saddr;
>                         __u32                   fwmark;
>                         __u8                    tos;
>                         __u8                    scope;
>                 } ip4_u;
> 
> So 14 bytes are really initialized, and 2 padding bytes might contain random 
> values...

We always explicitly initialize the flows, and even for local stack
assignment based initialization, gcc zeros out the padding bytes
always.  For non-stack-local cases we do explicit memset()'s over the
entire object.  So I think while not perfect, we're very much safe
here.

> fast comparison, we should do some clever long/int XOR operations to avoid 
> many test/branches, like the optim we did in compare_ether_addr())
> 
> As shown in profiles, "repz cmpsb" is really a dog... (and its use of 
> esi/edi/ecx registers a high pressure for the compiler/optimizer)

Yes, for the fast comparisons it is almost certainly worth it to do
something saner in compare_keys().

But looking at this further, compare_keys() is only used in hotpath
situations where we are optimizing for a miss, such as during hash
insert.  The optimization therefore might be less justified as a
result.

Re: [RFC] Question about potential problem in net/ipv4/route.c

[Patrick McHardy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 708 bytes --]

David Miller wrote:
> We always explicitly initialize the flows, and even for local stack
> assignment based initialization, gcc zeros out the padding bytes
> always.

I thought so too until I added the iptables compat functions recently
and noticed uninitialized padding of on-stack structures, which
confused iptables since it also uses memcmp.

This program demonstrates the effect, it doesn't output the expected
"1 2" but "1 4294967042" on my x86_64 (gcc-Version 4.1.2 20060901
(prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-13)). The initialization doesn't touch
the padding bytes:

0x0000000000400494 <test+8>:    movl   $0x1,0xfffffffffffffff0(%rbp)
0x000000000040049b <test+15>:   movb   $0x2,0xfffffffffffffff4(%rbp)


[-- Attachment #2: x.c --]
[-- Type: text/x-csrc, Size: 381 bytes --]

#include <stdio.h>

struct x1 {
	unsigned int	x;
	char		y;
};

struct x2 {
	unsigned int	x;
	unsigned int	y;
};

void pollute(void)
{
	struct x2 x = {
		.x	= ~0,
		.y	= ~0,
	};
}

void test(void)
{
	struct x1 x1 = {
		.x	= 1,
		.y	= 2,
	};
	struct x2 *x2 = (struct x2 *)&x1;

	printf("%u %u\n", x2->x, x2->y);
}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
	pollute();
	test();
	return 0;
}

Re: [RFC] Question about potential problem in net/ipv4/route.c

[David Miller]

From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:31:12 +0200

> This program demonstrates the effect, it doesn't output the expected
> "1 2" but "1 4294967042" on my x86_64 (gcc-Version 4.1.2 20060901
> (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-13)). The initialization doesn't touch
> the padding bytes:
> 
> 0x0000000000400494 <test+8>:    movl   $0x1,0xfffffffffffffff0(%rbp)
> 0x000000000040049b <test+15>:   movb   $0x2,0xfffffffffffffff4(%rbp)

Crap, ok we need to fix this.

I even looked at the assembler for a little test foo.c bit
of code... must have misread the sparc64 asm :)

Re: [RFC] Question about potential problem in net/ipv4/route.c

[Eric Dumazet]

David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:11:18 +0200
> 
>> Using memcmp(ptr1, ptr2, sizeof(SOMEFIELD)) is dangerous because 
>> sizeof(SOMEFIELD) can be larger than the underlying object, because of 
>> alignment constraints.
>>
>> In this case, sizeof(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u) is 16, while fl1->nl_u.ip4_u is :
>>
>>                 struct {
>>                         __u32                   daddr;
>>                         __u32                   saddr;
>>                         __u32                   fwmark;
>>                         __u8                    tos;
>>                         __u8                    scope;
>>                 } ip4_u;
>>
>> So 14 bytes are really initialized, and 2 padding bytes might contain random 
>> values...
> 
> We always explicitly initialize the flows, and even for local stack
> assignment based initialization, gcc zeros out the padding bytes
> always.  For non-stack-local cases we do explicit memset()'s over the
> entire object.  So I think while not perfect, we're very much safe
> here.
> 

Not on my gcc here (gcc version 3.4.4) : It wont zeros out the padding bytes

# cat bug.c
struct s1 {
     long d;
     char c;
};

void bar()
{
struct s1 s = { .d = 123, .c = 'a'};
foo(&s, sizeof(s));
}
# gcc -O2 -S bug.c
# more bug.s
.globl bar
         .type   bar, @function
bar:
.LFB2:
         subq    $24, %rsp
.LCFI0:
         movl    $16, %esi
         xorl    %eax, %eax
         movq    %rsp, %rdi
         movq    $123, (%rsp)
         movb    $97, 8(%rsp)
         call    foo
         addq    $24, %rsp
         ret

So 9(%rsp) -> 15(%rsp) are not initialized

Same on more recent gcc (4.1.1)

>> fast comparison, we should do some clever long/int XOR operations to avoid 
>> many test/branches, like the optim we did in compare_ether_addr())
>>
>> As shown in profiles, "repz cmpsb" is really a dog... (and its use of 
>> esi/edi/ecx registers a high pressure for the compiler/optimizer)
> 
> Yes, for the fast comparisons it is almost certainly worth it to do
> something saner in compare_keys().
> 
> But looking at this further, compare_keys() is only used in hotpath
> situations where we are optimizing for a miss, such as during hash
> insert.  The optimization therefore might be less justified as a
> result.

Well, on this machine I have these oprofile numbers :

<rt_intern_hash>: /* rt_intern_hash total: 993464  0.3619 */

  31751  0.0116 :ffffffff803e8d26:   repz cmpsb %es:(%rdi),%ds:(%rsi)
433438  0.1579 :ffffffff803e8d28:   jne    ffffffff803e8f80 <rt_intern_hash+0x310>

Eric

Re: [RFC] Question about potential problem in net/ipv4/route.c

[David Miller]

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:48:20 +0200

> Not on my gcc here (gcc version 3.4.4) : It wont zeros out the padding bytes

Patrick just proved this too :)

> Well, on this machine I have these oprofile numbers :
> 
> <rt_intern_hash>: /* rt_intern_hash total: 993464  0.3619 */
> 
>   31751  0.0116 :ffffffff803e8d26:   repz cmpsb %es:(%rdi),%ds:(%rsi)
> 433438  0.1579 :ffffffff803e8d28:   jne    ffffffff803e8f80 <rt_intern_hash+0x310>

Indeed, numbers talk bullshit walks :)

How about something like this as a start?

diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
index c41ddba..4d4b1bd 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
@@ -566,9 +566,13 @@ static inline u32 rt_score(struct rtable
 
 static inline int compare_keys(struct flowi *fl1, struct flowi *fl2)
 {
-	return memcmp(&fl1->nl_u.ip4_u, &fl2->nl_u.ip4_u, sizeof(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u)) == 0 &&
-	       fl1->oif     == fl2->oif &&
-	       fl1->iif     == fl2->iif;
+	return ((fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.daddr ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.daddr) |
+		(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.saddr ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.saddr) |
+		(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.fwmark ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.fwmark) |
+		(*(u16 *)&fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.tos ^
+		 *(u16 *)&fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.tos) |
+		(fl1->oif ^ fl2->oif) |
+		(fl1->iif ^ fl2->iif)) == 0;
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED

Re: [RFC] Question about potential problem in net/ipv4/route.c

[Patrick McHardy]

David Miller wrote:
> Indeed, numbers talk bullshit walks :)

:)

> How about something like this as a start?
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c

The same problem is also present in dn_route.c (3 uninitialized
bytes in dn_u).

Re: [RFC] Question about potential problem in net/ipv4/route.c

[David Miller]

From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:10:43 +0200

> David Miller wrote:
> > Indeed, numbers talk bullshit walks :)
> 
> :)
> 
> > How about something like this as a start?
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
> 
> The same problem is also present in dn_route.c (3 uninitialized
> bytes in dn_u).

This should take care of that case too:

diff --git a/net/decnet/dn_route.c b/net/decnet/dn_route.c
index dd0761e..33ccc56 100644
--- a/net/decnet/dn_route.c
+++ b/net/decnet/dn_route.c
@@ -267,9 +267,12 @@ static void dn_dst_link_failure(struct s
 
 static inline int compare_keys(struct flowi *fl1, struct flowi *fl2)
 {
-	return memcmp(&fl1->nl_u.dn_u, &fl2->nl_u.dn_u, sizeof(fl1->nl_u.dn_u)) == 0 &&
-		fl1->oif == fl2->oif &&
-		fl1->iif == fl2->iif;
+	return ((fl1->nl_u.dn_u.daddr ^ fl2->nl_u.dn_u.daddr) |
+		(fl1->nl_u.dn_u.saddr ^ fl2->nl_u.dn_u.saddr) |
+		(fl1->nl_u.dn_u.fwmark ^ fl2->nl_u.dn_u.fwmark) |
+		(fl1->nl_u.dn_u.scope ^ fl2->nl_u.dn_u.scope) |
+		(fl1->oif ^ fl2->oif) |
+		(fl1->iif ^ fl2->iif)) == 0;
 }
 
 static int dn_insert_route(struct dn_route *rt, unsigned hash, struct dn_route **rp)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
index c41ddba..4d4b1bd 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
@@ -566,9 +566,13 @@ static inline u32 rt_score(struct rtable
 
 static inline int compare_keys(struct flowi *fl1, struct flowi *fl2)
 {
-	return memcmp(&fl1->nl_u.ip4_u, &fl2->nl_u.ip4_u, sizeof(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u)) == 0 &&
-	       fl1->oif     == fl2->oif &&
-	       fl1->iif     == fl2->iif;
+	return ((fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.daddr ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.daddr) |
+		(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.saddr ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.saddr) |
+		(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.fwmark ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.fwmark) |
+		(*(u16 *)&fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.tos ^
+		 *(u16 *)&fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.tos) |
+		(fl1->oif ^ fl2->oif) |
+		(fl1->iif ^ fl2->iif)) == 0;
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED

Re: [RFC] Question about potential problem in net/ipv4/route.c

[Eric Dumazet]

David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:48:20 +0200
> 
>> Not on my gcc here (gcc version 3.4.4) : It wont zeros out the padding bytes
> 
> Patrick just proved this too :)
> 
>> Well, on this machine I have these oprofile numbers :
>>
>> <rt_intern_hash>: /* rt_intern_hash total: 993464  0.3619 */
>>
>>   31751  0.0116 :ffffffff803e8d26:   repz cmpsb %es:(%rdi),%ds:(%rsi)
>> 433438  0.1579 :ffffffff803e8d28:   jne    ffffffff803e8f80 <rt_intern_hash+0x310>
> 
> Indeed, numbers talk bullshit walks :)
> 
> How about something like this as a start?
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
> index c41ddba..4d4b1bd 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/route.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
> @@ -566,9 +566,13 @@ static inline u32 rt_score(struct rtable
>  
>  static inline int compare_keys(struct flowi *fl1, struct flowi *fl2)
>  {
> -	return memcmp(&fl1->nl_u.ip4_u, &fl2->nl_u.ip4_u, sizeof(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u)) == 0 &&
> -	       fl1->oif     == fl2->oif &&
> -	       fl1->iif     == fl2->iif;
> +	return ((fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.daddr ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.daddr) |
> +		(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.saddr ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.saddr) |
> +		(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.fwmark ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.fwmark) |
> +		(*(u16 *)&fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.tos ^
> +		 *(u16 *)&fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.tos) |
> +		(fl1->oif ^ fl2->oif) |
> +		(fl1->iif ^ fl2->iif)) == 0;
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED
> 
> 

Yes it seems a nice start :)

How about avoiding the fwmark thing if !CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK

 > +	return ((fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.daddr ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.daddr) |
 > +		(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.saddr ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.saddr) |

#ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK

 > +		(fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.fwmark ^ fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.fwmark) |

#endif

 > +		(*(u16 *)&fl1->nl_u.ip4_u.tos ^
 > +		 *(u16 *)&fl2->nl_u.ip4_u.tos) |
 > +		(fl1->oif ^ fl2->oif) |
 > +		(fl1->iif ^ fl2->iif)) == 0;


Eric

Re: [RFC] Question about potential problem in net/ipv4/route.c

[David Miller]

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:35:47 +0200

> How about avoiding the fwmark thing if !CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK

I've added that, good idea.

[PATCH] NET : Suspicious locking in reqsk_queue_hash_req()

[Eric Dumazet]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 217 bytes --]

Hi David

While browsing include/net/request_sock.h I found this suspicious locking 
protecting the SYN table hash table. I think this patch is necessary.

Thank you

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>

[-- Attachment #2: reqsk_queue_hash_req.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 454 bytes --]

--- linux-2.6.18/include/net/request_sock.h.orig	2006-10-16 10:53:11.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.18-ed/include/net/request_sock.h	2006-10-16 10:53:24.000000000 +0200
@@ -251,9 +251,9 @@
 	req->expires = jiffies + timeout;
 	req->retrans = 0;
 	req->sk = NULL;
-	req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[hash];
 
 	write_lock(&queue->syn_wait_lock);
+	req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[hash];
 	lopt->syn_table[hash] = req;
 	write_unlock(&queue->syn_wait_lock);
 }

[PATCH] NET : Suspicious locking in reqsk_queue_hash_req()

[Eric Dumazet]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 250 bytes --]

(Sorry, patch inlined this time)

Hi David

While browsing include/net/request_sock.h I found this suspicious locking
protecting the SYN table hash table. I think this patch is necessary.

Thank you

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>

[-- Attachment #2: reqsk_queue_hash_req.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 454 bytes --]

--- linux-2.6.18/include/net/request_sock.h.orig	2006-10-16 10:53:11.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.18-ed/include/net/request_sock.h	2006-10-16 10:53:24.000000000 +0200
@@ -251,9 +251,9 @@
 	req->expires = jiffies + timeout;
 	req->retrans = 0;
 	req->sk = NULL;
-	req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[hash];
 
 	write_lock(&queue->syn_wait_lock);
+	req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[hash];
 	lopt->syn_table[hash] = req;
 	write_unlock(&queue->syn_wait_lock);
 }

Re: [PATCH] NET : Suspicious locking in reqsk_queue_hash_req()

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

On 10/16/06, Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
> (Sorry, patch inlined this time)
>
> Hi David
>
> While browsing include/net/request_sock.h I found this suspicious locking
> protecting the SYN table hash table. I think this patch is necessary.
>
> Thank you

Interesting, just checked and it was there before I moved this out of tcp land:

http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=0e87506fcc734647c7b2497eee4eb81e785c857a

@@ -898,18 +898,10 @@ static struct request_sock *tcp_v4_searc
static void tcp_v4_synq_add(struct sock *sk, struct request_sock *req)
{
          struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
-        struct tcp_listen_opt *lopt = tp->listen_opt;
+       struct tcp_listen_opt *lopt = tp->accept_queue.listen_opt;
         u32 h = tcp_v4_synq_hash(inet_rsk(req)->rmt_addr,
inet_rsk(req)->rmt_port, lopt->hash_rnd);
-        req->expires = jiffies + TCP_TIMEOUT_INIT;
-        req->retrans = 0;
-        req->sk = NULL;
-        req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[h];
-
-        write_lock(&tp->syn_wait_lock);
-        lopt->syn_table[h] = req;
-        write_unlock(&tp->syn_wait_lock);
-
+        reqsk_queue_hash_req(&tp->accept_queue, h, req, TCP_TIMEOUT_INIT);
          tcp_synq_added(sk);
}


> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
>
>
> --- linux-2.6.18/include/net/request_sock.h.orig        2006-10-16 10:53:11.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.18-ed/include/net/request_sock.h  2006-10-16 10:53:24.000000000 +0200
> @@ -251,9 +251,9 @@
>         req->expires = jiffies + timeout;
>         req->retrans = 0;
>         req->sk = NULL;
> -       req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[hash];
>
>         write_lock(&queue->syn_wait_lock);
> +       req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[hash];
>         lopt->syn_table[hash] = req;
>         write_unlock(&queue->syn_wait_lock);
>  }

Re: [PATCH] NET : Suspicious locking in reqsk_queue_hash_req()

[Eric Dumazet]

On Monday 16 October 2006 18:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On 10/16/06, Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
> > (Sorry, patch inlined this time)
> >
> > Hi David
> >
> > While browsing include/net/request_sock.h I found this suspicious locking
> > protecting the SYN table hash table. I think this patch is necessary.
> >
> > Thank you
>
> Interesting, just checked and it was there before I moved this out of tcp
> land:

Well, the bug was there before you put your hands on the code (I checked 
linux-2.4.33 & linux-2.4.1 , bug present on both versions)

:)

Eric

Re: [PATCH] NET : Suspicious locking in reqsk_queue_hash_req()

[Eric Dumazet]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1486 bytes --]

On Monday 16 October 2006 18:56, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Monday 16 October 2006 18:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > On 10/16/06, Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
> > > (Sorry, patch inlined this time)
> > >
> > > Hi David
> > >
> > > While browsing include/net/request_sock.h I found this suspicious
> > > locking protecting the SYN table hash table. I think this patch is
> > > necessary.
> > >
> > > Thank you
> >
> > Interesting, just checked and it was there before I moved this out of tcp
> > land:
>
> Well, the bug was there before you put your hands on the code (I checked
> linux-2.4.33 & linux-2.4.1 , bug present on both versions)

Well, 'bug' is not appropriate in fact. Overkill maybe ? 

The comment from include/net/request_sock.h explain the thing...

 * %syn_wait_lock is necessary only to avoid proc interface having to grab the 
main
 * lock sock while browsing the listening hash (otherwise it's deadlock 
prone).
 *
 * This lock is acquired in read mode only from listening_get_next() seq_file
 * op and it's acquired in write mode _only_ from code that is actively
 * changing rskq_accept_head. All readers that are holding the master sock 
lock
 * don't need to grab this lock in read mode too as rskq_accept_head. writes
 * are always protected from the main sock lock.

I bet a more appropriate code (and less prone to reading errors for kernel 
gurus/newbies) would be :

What do you think ?

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>

[-- Attachment #2: reqsk_queue_hash_req.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 541 bytes --]

--- linux-2.6.19-rc2/include/net/request_sock.h	2006-10-13 18:25:04.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc2-ed/include/net/request_sock.h	2006-10-16 19:34:19.000000000 +0200
@@ -254,9 +254,13 @@
 	req->sk = NULL;
 	req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[hash];
 
-	write_lock(&queue->syn_wait_lock);
+	/*
+	 * We want previous writes being commited before doing this change,
+	 * so that readers of the chain are not confused.
+	 */
+	smp_mb();
+
 	lopt->syn_table[hash] = req;
-	write_unlock(&queue->syn_wait_lock);
 }
 
 #endif /* _REQUEST_SOCK_H */

Re: [PATCH] NET : Suspicious locking in reqsk_queue_hash_req()

[David Miller]

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:00:22 +0200

> While browsing include/net/request_sock.h I found this suspicious locking 
> protecting the SYN table hash table. I think this patch is necessary.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>

People get tripped up by this one all the time.

We hold a higher level lock which protects other
inserts from happening, namely the listening socket
lock, it works here like the RTNL semaphore does.

We only need to protect the actual change of the hash
head, as lookups can occur asynchronously and we want
linkage seen by lookups to be consistent.

Alexey likes to do this locking trick a lot.

Feel free to add a comment. :-)