From: "Amir Vadai\"" <amir@vadai.me>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: jiri@resnulli.us, daniel@iogearbox.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net,
jhs@mojatatu.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 3/4] net: sched: cls_u32 add bit to specify software only rules
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:04:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160224080440.GA26500@office.Home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160223190321.5970.58924.stgit@john-Precision-Tower-5810>
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:03:21AM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> In the initial implementation the only way to stop a rule from being
> inserted into the hardware table was via the device feature flag.
> However this doesn't work well when working on an end host system
> where packets are expect to hit both the hardware and software
> datapaths.
>
> For example we can imagine a rule that will match an IP address and
> increment a field. If we install this rule in both hardware and
> software we may increment the field twice. To date we have only
> added support for the drop action so we have been able to ignore
> these cases. But as we extend the action support we will hit this
> example plus more such cases. Arguably these are not even corner
> cases in many working systems these cases will be common.
>
> To avoid forcing the driver to always abort (i.e. the above example)
> this patch adds a flag to add a rule in software only. A careful
> user can use this flag to build software and hardware datapaths
> that work together. One example we have found particularly useful
> is to use hardware resources to set the skb->mark on the skb when
> the match may be expensive to run in software but a mark lookup
> in a hash table is cheap. The idea here is hardware can do in one
> lookup what the u32 classifier may need to traverse multiple lists
> and hash tables to compute. The flag is only passed down on inserts
> on deletion to avoid stale references in hardware we always try
> to remove a rule if it exists.
>
> Notice we do not add a hardware only case here. If you were to
> add a hardware only case then you are stuck with the problem
> of where to stick the software representation of that filter
> rule. If its stuck on the same filter list as the software only and
> software/hardware rules it then has to be walked over and ignored
> in the classify path. The overhead is not huge but is measurable.
> And with so much work being invested in speeding up rx/tx of
> pkt processing this is unacceptable IMO. The other option is to
> have a special hook just for hardware only resources. This is
> implemented in the next patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>
[...]
>
> -static bool u32_should_offload(struct net_device *dev)
> +static bool u32_should_offload(struct net_device *dev, u32 flags)
> {
> if (!(dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_TC))
> return false;
>
> - return dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc;
> + if (flags & TCA_U32_FLAGS_SOFTWARE)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (!dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc)
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;
> }
This function and flag should be a generic filter attribute - not just
u32.
Thanks,
Amir
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-24 8:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-23 19:02 [net-next PATCH 1/4] net: sched: consolidate offload decision in cls_u32 John Fastabend
2016-02-23 19:02 ` [net-next PATCH 2/4] net: cls_u32: move TC offload feature bit into cls_u32 offload logic John Fastabend
2016-02-24 6:12 ` Simon Horman
2016-02-24 13:21 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2016-02-23 19:03 ` [net-next PATCH 3/4] net: sched: cls_u32 add bit to specify software only rules John Fastabend
2016-02-23 22:29 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2016-02-23 23:30 ` John Fastabend
2016-02-24 6:11 ` Simon Horman
2016-02-24 7:24 ` John Fastabend
2016-02-24 8:04 ` Amir Vadai" [this message]
2016-02-24 8:40 ` Jiri Pirko
2016-02-24 8:55 ` John Fastabend
2016-02-24 9:29 ` Jiri Benc
2016-02-25 4:09 ` John Fastabend
2016-02-25 13:19 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2016-02-25 16:39 ` John Fastabend
2016-02-24 13:31 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2016-02-25 4:04 ` John Fastabend
2016-02-25 12:56 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2016-02-25 21:56 ` John Fastabend
2016-02-25 23:05 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2016-02-25 23:08 ` John Fastabend
2016-02-23 19:03 ` [net-next PATCH 4/4] net: sched: create hardware only classifier filter John Fastabend
2016-02-24 8:47 ` Jiri Pirko
2016-02-25 13:14 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2016-02-25 17:36 ` John Fastabend
2016-02-24 6:12 ` [net-next PATCH 1/4] net: sched: consolidate offload decision in cls_u32 Simon Horman
2016-02-24 8:49 ` Jiri Pirko
2016-02-24 13:20 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
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=20160224080440.GA26500@office.Home \
--to=amir@vadai.me \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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).