From: "Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: "Jason Xing" <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
<edumazet@google.com>, <kuba@kernel.org>, <pabeni@redhat.com>,
<horms@kernel.org>, <willemb@google.com>, <kuniyu@google.com>
Cc: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
"Jason Xing" <kernelxing@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/9] net: BPF Timestamping 2.0 for TCP
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2026 18:12:17 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DLJHVEYXMZ6R.1YX59HGMRMYO0@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260919143732.11772-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
On Sat Sep 19, 2026 at 2:37 PM UTC, Jason Xing wrote:
> From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@gmail.com>
>
> Greeting,
>
> It's BPF Timestamping 2.0 that aims to observe the packet latency
> more efficiently and simply for different protocols. The current
> series is only focused on TCP protocol.
>
> At Netdev 0x1a/Netconf 2026, the history, background, motivation and
> rough implementation of the feature were exhaustively introduced[1].
>
> History
> =======
> - In 2009, Patrick Ohly implemented the basic infrastructure
> - In 2014, Willem de Bruijn enhanced the TCP latency observation
> - In 2024, Jason Xing proposed its lightweight BPF version
> Detailed slides from 28 to 32 [1].
>
> Background
> ==========
> Even though BPF Timetamping 1.0 is comparatively low-overhead,
> transparent, it's still complicated due to a few points inherited
> from the design:
> - Inflexible/fixed reporting phases (qdisc/driver/ack)
> When we confirm the issue arises from the kernel by using attribution
> ability of timestamping feature, we need to further minimize the scope
> until the issue is fixed. That means, we then have to resort to write
> a few complex BPF progs with the similar functionalities (like skb
> level tag) which should not happen.
> - Not enough low-overhead
> Serving the sensitive applications, an always-on latency observation
> platform should mitigate the self-impact as much as possible. As we
> can conclude from BPF Timestamping selftests, there are some blocking
> and time-consuming points like where reading/writing BPF maps happen
> in the extremely hot paths.
> - Minor flaws
> There are a few minor flaws inherited from the initial design, like
> missing tagging the last packet[2][3][4].
All these "issues" sound minor and on their own do not warrant new uapi.
This RFC don't even have an example of how it could be used end-to-end.
So soft nack from me for now.
pw-bot: cr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-19 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-19 14:37 [PATCH RFC net-next 0/9] net: BPF Timestamping 2.0 for TCP Jason Xing
2026-09-19 14:37 ` [PATCH RFC net-next 1/9] net: add bpf_setsockopt for SK_BPF_CB_TIMESTAMPING_V2 Jason Xing
2026-09-20 14:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-19 14:37 ` [PATCH RFC net-next 2/9] bpf: add bpf_ktime_get_real_ns() kfunc Jason Xing
2026-09-20 14:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-19 14:37 ` [PATCH RFC net-next 3/9] tcp: record a start time in the tx path for SK_BPF_CB_TIMESTAMPING_V2 Jason Xing
2026-09-20 14:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-19 14:37 ` [PATCH RFC net-next 4/9] net: reuse skb_shared_hwtstamps for BPF Timestamping v2 Jason Xing
2026-09-20 14:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-19 14:37 ` [PATCH RFC net-next 5/9] net-timestamp: use pskb_copy to avoid polluting the orig skb's start time Jason Xing
2026-09-20 14:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-19 14:37 ` [PATCH RFC net-next 6/9] bpf-timestamping: restore skb hwtstamp if it is used by " Jason Xing
2026-09-20 14:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-19 14:37 ` [PATCH RFC net-next 7/9] tcp: propagate the start time onto every skb in the tx path Jason Xing
2026-09-20 14:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-19 14:37 ` [PATCH RFC net-next 8/9] net: generate the start time for every skb in the rx path Jason Xing
2026-09-20 14:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-19 14:37 ` [PATCH RFC net-next 9/9] tcp: handle the start time of each split skb in the tx path Jason Xing
2026-09-20 14:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-19 18:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2026-09-20 0:41 ` [PATCH RFC net-next 0/9] net: BPF Timestamping 2.0 for TCP Jason Xing
2026-09-21 18:45 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2026-09-22 1:20 ` Jason Xing
2026-09-22 20:53 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2026-09-23 9:40 ` Jason Xing
2026-09-24 16:11 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2026-09-30 10:21 ` Jason Xing
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=DLJHVEYXMZ6R.1YX59HGMRMYO0@gmail.com \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kerneljasonxing@gmail.com \
--cc=kernelxing@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kuniyu@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=willemb@google.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