Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/4] bpf-timestamp: convert to push-level granularity

Willem de Bruijn
2026-04-06T14:39:00Z

Jason Xing wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 10:17 AM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jason Xing wrote:
> > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> > >
> > > 1. Design of send-level granularity
> > > Originally, socket timestamping was designed to support tracing each
> > > sendmsg instead of per packet because application needs to issue
> > > multiple extra recvmsg() calls to get the skbs carrying the timestamp
> > > one by one if application chooses tag with different tags(SCHED/DRV/ACK).
> > > It's an obvious huge burden if the application expects to see a finer
> > > grained behavior.
> > > Another point I mentioned a bit in Netdev 0x19[1], supposing the amount of
> > > data that application tries to transfer at one time is split into 100
> > > smaller packets, recording the last skb's timestamps (SCHED/DRV/HARDWARE)
> > > is no longer meaningful because at the moment timestamping only records
> > > 1/100 packets. In this case, only the delta between when to send and when
> > > to ack matters.
> > >
> > > 2. Known missing tag issues in TCP
> > > A critically important thing is that we can miss tagging the last packet
> > > in a few conditions as the patch 3/4 explains. That means we lose track
> > > of the send syscall. Digging into more into how tcp_sendmsg_locked works,
> > > I found it's not feasible to successfully identify the last skb before
> > > push functions get called. With that said, if we want to make the feature
> > > better to cover all of these cases, we inevitably needs to place
> > > tcp_bpf_tx_timestamp() function before each push function.
> > >
> > > 3. Practice at Tencent
> > > In production, we have a version that applies the packet basis policy to
> > > do the exhaustive profiling of each flow for months in order to:
> > > 1) 100% make sure to capture the jitter event. No sampling.
> > > 2) observe the performance, find the bottleneck and improve it.
> > > We're still collecting data and investigating how it helps us in all the
> > > potential aspects before upstreaming. My personal perspective on this is
> > > to replace tcpdump eventually. It's worth mentioning tcpdump no longer
> > > satisfies our micro observation in modern data center.
> > >
> > > 4. The tendency toward finer-grained observability
> > > As we're aware that there are already many various bpf scripts trying to
> > > implement the fine grained monitor of the packets, it's an unstoppable
> > > tendency for the future observability. We're faced with so many latency
> > > reports (like jitter, perf degradation) on a daily basis. Getting the
> > > root cause of each report is exactly what we pursue.
> > > After we know which request causes the problem, if it belongs to kernel,
> > > we will dig into the packet behavior with more useful information
> > > included. This is the process of tracing down the jitter problem.
> > > Likewise, in BPF timestamping that mitigates the impact of calling extra
> > > syscalls, breaking the coarse granularity into smaller ones is a first
> > > good way to go. It shouldn't be the burden like before especially it's
> > > independent of application.
> > >
> > > 5. Details of the series
> > > Now it's time to convert BPF timestamping feature into push-level
> > > granularity by only recording the last skb in each push function, which
> > > is quite similar to how we previously treat each send syscall.
> > > Regarding each push function as a whole, we only care about
> > > the last skb from each push since the skb can be chunked into different
> > > smaller packets. BPF scripts like progs/net_timestamping.c has the
> > > ability to trace each tagged skb and calculate the latency:
> > > 1) delta between send and each tagged skb in tcp_sendmsg_locked()
> > > 2) delta between SCHED/DRV/ACK. Three timestamps are also correlated
> > > with the sendmsg time.
> > >
> > > In conclusion, push-level is more of a compromise approach which covers
> > > those corner cases and further enhances the capabilities (like a finer
> > > grained observation of jitter and performance issues).
> >
> > # push-level design
> >
> > It it significantly less intuitive than per-syscall, which is under
> > user control. Or even than per-packet. As a fix for missing timestamps
> > I understand these two extensions, even with the unintended side
> > effect of reporting many unnecessary extra skbs in the common case.
> > As a model to advocate for, less so.
>
> Thanks for your review!
>
> Fair enough. One mode of our internal kernel module directly hijacks
> tcp_skb_entail() that handles the last skb of this skb if
> fragmentation happens.
>
> >
> > Would it help if all skbs from the same sendmsg() can still be
> > identified as common from the same syscall? That allows the user
>
> I have to add more comments about push level:
> the last skb from each push function will always be correlated with
> its own sendmsg. With the help of BPF_SOCK_OPS_TSTAMP_SENDMSG_CB, bpf
> script can do so.
>
> > to discard all but the last one (if they wish)
>
> Oh, I just replied with another reply. Let's start the discussion here.
>
> It would be great if we have a definite finer grained observability.
>
> >
> >
> > # ABI changes
> >
> > For SO_TIMESTAMPING we would not be able to make this change
> > unconditionally as the behavior change would break existing
> > application expectations.
>
> Right.
>
> >
> > That is why historically we have guarded new behabvior behind new
> > TS options flags.
> >
> > The same may be true for BPF.
>
> How about adding a socket option for a per packet mode, say,
> BPF_SOCK_OPS_TSTAMP_TCP_PACKET_CB around tcp_skb_entail() which works
> very similarly to
> BPF_SOCK_OPS_TSTAMP_SENDMSG_CB. After that, users have a standalone
> option to decide whether to trace all the skbs from the sendmsg.
>
> If so, the origin BPF timestamping that works exactly like socket
> timestamping is the best effort (we don't 100% guarantee the timestamping
> feature captures every sendmsg call). With the new socket option
> involved, we provide a finer grained vision without harming users who
> favor the origin design with those two issues resolved.
>
> A kind reminder is that if the skb is fragmented, for instance, due to
> TSO being disabled, only the last smaller/child one will be monitored.

See also my reply in the other thread. Yes, per-packet may be more
informative and understandable as policy than per-push.