bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciejromanfijalkowski@gmail.com>
To: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@intel.com>
Cc: magnus.karlsson@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
	jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, jonathan.lemon@gmail.com,
	songliubraving@fb.com, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/4] libbpf: fill the AF_XDP fill queue before bind() call
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 17:04:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190604170452.00001b29@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <76bc124c-46ed-f0a6-315e-1600c837aea0@intel.com>

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 10:06:36 +0200
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@intel.com> wrote:

> On 2019-06-03 15:19, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> > Let's get into the driver via ndo_bpf with command set to XDP_SETUP_UMEM
> > with fill queue that already contains some available entries that can be
> > used by Rx driver rings. Things worked in such way on old version of
> > xdpsock (that lacked libbpf support) and there's no particular reason
> > for having this preparation done after bind().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kazimierczak <krzysztof.kazimierczak@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c | 15 ---------------
> >   tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c        | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >   2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c b/samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c
> > index d08ee1ab7bb4..e9dceb09b6d1 100644
> > --- a/samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c
> > +++ b/samples/bpf/xdpsock_user.c
> > @@ -296,8 +296,6 @@ static struct xsk_socket_info *xsk_configure_socket(struct xsk_umem_info *umem)
> >   	struct xsk_socket_config cfg;
> >   	struct xsk_socket_info *xsk;
> >   	int ret;
> > -	u32 idx;
> > -	int i;
> >   
> >   	xsk = calloc(1, sizeof(*xsk));
> >   	if (!xsk)
> > @@ -318,19 +316,6 @@ static struct xsk_socket_info *xsk_configure_socket(struct xsk_umem_info *umem)
> >   	if (ret)
> >   		exit_with_error(-ret);
> >   
> > -	ret = xsk_ring_prod__reserve(&xsk->umem->fq,
> > -				     XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS,
> > -				     &idx);
> > -	if (ret != XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS)
> > -		exit_with_error(-ret);
> > -	for (i = 0;
> > -	     i < XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS *
> > -		     XSK_UMEM__DEFAULT_FRAME_SIZE;
> > -	     i += XSK_UMEM__DEFAULT_FRAME_SIZE)
> > -		*xsk_ring_prod__fill_addr(&xsk->umem->fq, idx++) = i;
> > -	xsk_ring_prod__submit(&xsk->umem->fq,
> > -			      XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS);
> > -
> >   	return xsk;
> >   }
> >   
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> > index 38667b62f1fe..57dda1389870 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> > @@ -529,7 +529,8 @@ int xsk_socket__create(struct xsk_socket **xsk_ptr, const char *ifname,
> >   	struct xdp_mmap_offsets off;
> >   	struct xsk_socket *xsk;
> >   	socklen_t optlen;
> > -	int err;
> > +	int err, i;
> > +	u32 idx;
> >   
> >   	if (!umem || !xsk_ptr || !rx || !tx)
> >   		return -EFAULT;
> > @@ -632,6 +633,22 @@ int xsk_socket__create(struct xsk_socket **xsk_ptr, const char *ifname,
> >   	}
> >   	xsk->tx = tx;
> >   
> > +	err = xsk_ring_prod__reserve(umem->fill,
> > +				     XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS,
> > +				     &idx);
> > +	if (err != XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS) {
> > +		err = -errno;
> > +		goto out_mmap_tx;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0;
> > +	     i < XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS *
> > +		     XSK_UMEM__DEFAULT_FRAME_SIZE;
> > +	     i += XSK_UMEM__DEFAULT_FRAME_SIZE)
> > +		*xsk_ring_prod__fill_addr(umem->fill, idx++) = i;
> > +	xsk_ring_prod__submit(umem->fill,
> > +			      XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS);
> > +
> 
> Here, entries are added to the umem fill ring regardless if Rx is being
> used or not. For a Tx only setup, this is not what we want, right?

Right, but we have such behavior even without this patch. So I see two options
here:
- if you agree with this patch, then I guess we would need to pass the info to
  libbpf what exactly we are setting up (txonly, rxdrop, l2fwd)?
- otherwise, we should be passing the opt_bench onto xsk_configure_socket and
  based on that decide whether we fill the fq or not?

> 
> Thinking out loud here; Now libbpf is making the decision which umem
> entries that are added to the fill ring. The sample application has this
> (naive) scheme. I'm not sure that all applications would like that
> policy. What do you think?
>

I find it convenient to have the fill queue in "initialized" state if I am
making use of it, especially in case when I am doing the ZC so I must give the
buffers to the driver via fill queue. So why would we bother other applications
to provide it? I must admit that I haven't used AF_XDP with other apps than the
example one, so I might not be able to elaborate further. Maybe other people
have different feelings about it.

> >   	sxdp.sxdp_family = PF_XDP;
> >   	sxdp.sxdp_ifindex = xsk->ifindex;
> >   	sxdp.sxdp_queue_id = xsk->queue_id;
> > 


  reply	other threads:[~2019-06-04 15:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20190603131907.13395-1-maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
     [not found] ` <20190603131907.13395-2-maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
2019-06-04  8:06   ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/4] libbpf: fill the AF_XDP fill queue before bind() call Björn Töpel
2019-06-04 15:04     ` Maciej Fijalkowski [this message]
2019-06-04 15:54       ` Jonathan Lemon
2019-06-05  9:00       ` Björn Töpel
     [not found] ` <20190603131907.13395-3-maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
2019-06-04  8:06   ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 2/4] libbpf: check for channels.max_{t,r}x in xsk_get_max_queues Björn Töpel
2019-06-04 15:05     ` Maciej Fijalkowski
     [not found] ` <20190603131907.13395-4-maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
2019-06-04  8:07   ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 3/4] libbpf: move xdp program removal to libbpf Björn Töpel
2019-06-04 15:06     ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2019-06-05  9:03       ` Björn Töpel
     [not found] ` <20190603131907.13395-5-maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
2019-06-04  8:08   ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 4/4] libbpf: don't remove eBPF resources when other xsks are present Björn Töpel
2019-06-04 15:07     ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2019-06-05  9:26       ` Björn Töpel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190604170452.00001b29@gmail.com \
    --to=maciejromanfijalkowski@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bjorn.topel@intel.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
    --cc=jonathan.lemon@gmail.com \
    --cc=magnus.karlsson@intel.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).