Re: [xdp-hints] Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 32/52] bpf, cpumap: switch to GRO from netif_receive_skb_list()

Lorenzo Bianconi
2024-08-08T17:22:47Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3607 bytes --]

> From: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 06:54:06 +0200
>
> >> Hi Alexander,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022, at 12:47 PM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> >>> cpumap has its own BH context based on kthread. It has a sane batch
> >>> size of 8 frames per one cycle.
> >>> GRO can be used on its own, adjust cpumap calls to the
> >>> upper stack to use GRO API instead of netif_receive_skb_list() which
> >>> processes skbs by batches, but doesn't involve GRO layer at all.
> >>> It is most beneficial when a NIC which frame come from is XDP
> >>> generic metadata-enabled, but in plenty of tests GRO performs better
> >>> than listed receiving even given that it has to calculate full frame
> >>> checksums on CPU.
> >>> As GRO passes the skbs to the upper stack in the batches of
> >>> @gro_normal_batch, i.e. 8 by default, and @skb->dev point to the
> >>> device where the frame comes from, it is enough to disable GRO
> >>> netdev feature on it to completely restore the original behaviour:
> >>> untouched frames will be being bulked and passed to the upper stack
> >>> by 8, as it was with netif_receive_skb_list().
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> kernel/bpf/cpumap.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>
> >> AFAICT the cpumap + GRO is a good standalone improvement. I think
> >> cpumap is still missing this.
>
> The only concern for having GRO in cpumap without metadata from the NIC
> descriptor was that when the checksum status is missing, GRO calculates
> the checksum on CPU, which is not really fast.
> But I remember sometimes GRO was faster despite that.
>
> >>
> >> I have a production use case for this now. We want to do some intelligent
> >> RX steering and I think GRO would help over list-ified receive in some cases.
> >> We would prefer steer in HW (and thus get existing GRO support) but not all
> >> our NICs support it. So we need a software fallback.
> >>
> >> Are you still interested in merging the cpumap + GRO patches?
>
> For sure I can revive this part. I was planning to get back to this
> branch and pick patches which were not related to XDP hints and send
> them separately.
>
> >
> > Hi Daniel and Alex,
> >
> > Recently I worked on a PoC to add GRO support to cpumap codebase:
> > - https://github.com/LorenzoBianconi/bpf-next/commit/a4b8264d5000ecf016da5a2dd9ac302deaf38b3e
> > Here I added GRO support to cpumap through gro-cells.
> > - https://github.com/LorenzoBianconi/bpf-next/commit/da6cb32a4674aa72401c7414c9a8a0775ef41a55
> > Here I added GRO support to cpumap trough napi-threaded APIs (with a some
> > changes to them).
>
> Hmm, when I was testing it, adding a whole NAPI to cpumap was sorta
> overkill, that's why I separated GRO structure from &napi_struct.

if we consider the NAPI-threaded implementation, we have the same architecture
we have in current cpumap codebase, a thread for each cpumap entry, the only
different is we can rely on GRO APIs.

Regards,
Lorenzo

>
> Let me maybe find some free time, I would then test all 3 solutions
> (mine, gro_cells, threaded NAPI) and pick/send the best?
>
> >
> > Please note I have not run any performance tests so far, just verified it does
> > not crash (I was planning to resume this work soon). Please let me know if it
> > works for you.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lorenzo
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Daniel
>
> Thanks,
> Olek
>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]