Re: [PATCH RFC v2 01/33] xdp: add frame size to xdp_buff

Jakub Kicinski
2020-04-09T01:13:12Z

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 00:48:30 +0000 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > + * This macro reserves tailroom in the XDP buffer by limiting the
> > > + * XDP/BPF data access to data_hard_end. Notice same area (and
> > > size)
> > > + * is used for XDP_PASS, when constructing the SKB via
> > > build_skb().
> > > + */
> > > +#define xdp_data_hard_end(xdp) \
> > > + ((xdp)->data_hard_start + (xdp)->frame_sz - \
> > > + SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)))
> >
> > I think it should be said somewhere that the drivers are expected to
> > DMA map memory up to xdp_data_hard_end(xdp).
> >
>
> but this works on a specific xdp buff, drivers work with mtu
>
> and what if the driver want to have this as an option per packet ..
> i.e.: if there is enough tail room, then build_skb, otherwise
> alloc new skb, copy headers, setup data frags.. etc
>
> having such limitations on driver can be very strict, i think the
> decision must remain dynamic per frame..
>
> of-course drivers should optimize to preserve enough tail room for all
> rx packets..

My concern is that driver may allocate a full page for each frame but
only DMA map the amount that can reasonably contain data given the MTU.
To save on DMA syncs.

Today that wouldn't be a problem, because XDP_REDIRECT will re-map the
page, and XDP_TX has the same MTU.

In this set xdp_data_hard_end is used both to find the end of memory
buffer, and end of DMA buffer. Implementation of bpf_xdp_adjust_tail()
assumes anything < SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) from
the end is fair game.

So I was trying to say that we should warn driver authors that the DMA
buffer can now grow / move beyond what the driver may expect in XDP_TX.
Drivers can either DMA map enough memory, or handle the corner case in
a special way.

IDK if that makes sense, we may be talking past each other :)