Re: [RFC] net: store port/representative id in metadata_dst

[Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:22:59 -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> On 9/23/2016 8:29 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 07:23:26 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:  
> >> Yep, I like the idea in general. I had a slightly different approach in
> >> mind though. If you look at __dev_queue_xmit() there is a void
> >> accel_priv pointer (gather you found this based on your commit note).
> >> My take was we could extend this a bit so it can be used by the VFR
> >> devices and they could do a dev_queue_xmit_accel(). In this way there is
> >> no need to touch /net/core/{filter, dst, ip_tunnel}.c etc. Maybe the
> >> accel logic needs to be extended to push the priv pointer all the way
> >> through the xmit routine of the target netdev though. This should look
> >> a lot like the macvlan accelerated xmit device path without the
> >> switching logic.
> >>
> >> Of course maybe the name would be extended to dev_queue_xmit_extended()
> >> or something.
> >>
> >> So the flow on ingress would be,
> >>
> >>    1. pkt_received_by_PF_netdev
> >>    2. PF_netdev reads some tag off packet/descriptor and sets correct
> >>       skb->dev field. This is needed so stack "sees" packets from
> >>       correct VF ports.
> >>    3. packet passed up to stack.
> >>
> >> I guess it is a bit "zombie" like on the receive path because the packet
> >> is never actually handled by VF netdev code per se and on egress can
> >> traverse both the VFR and PF netdevs qdiscs. But on the other hand the
> >> VFR netdevs and PF netdevs are all in the same driver. Plus using a
> >> queue per VFR is a bit of a waste as its not needed and also hardware
> >> may not have any mechanism to push VF traffic onto a rx queue.
> >>
> >> On egress,
> >>
> >>    1. VFR xmit is called
> >>    2. VFR xmit calls dev_queue_xmit_accel() with some meta-data if needed
> >>       for the lower netdev
> >>    3. lower netdev sends out the packet.
> >>
> >> Again we don't need to waste any queues for each VFR and the VFR can be
> >> a LLTX device. In this scheme I think you avoid much of the changes in
> >> your patch and keep it all contained in the driver. Any thoughts?  
> 
> The 'accel' parameter in dev_queue_xmit_accel() is currently only passed
> to ndo_select_queue() via netdev_pick_tx() and is used to select the tx 
> queue.
> Also, it is not passed all the way to the driver specific xmit routine.  
> Doesn't it require
> changing all the driver xmit routines if we want to pass this parameter?
> 
> > Goes without saying that you have a much better understanding of packet
> > scheduling so please bear with me :)  My target model is that I have
> > n_cpus x "n_tc/prio" queues on the PF and I want to transmit the
> > fallback traffic over those same queues.  So no new HW queues are used
> > for VFRs at all.  This is a reverse of macvlan offload which AFAICT has
> > "bastard hw queues" which actually TX for a separate software device.
> >
> > My understanding was that I can rework this model to have software
> > queues for VFRs (#sw queues == #PF queues + #VFRs) but no extra HW
> > queues (#hw queues == #PF queues) but then when the driver sees a
> > packet on sw-only VFR queue it has to pick one of the PF queues (which
> > one?), lock PF software queue to own it, and only then can it
> > transmit.  With the dst_metadata there is no need for extra locking or
> > queue selection.  
> 
> Yes.  The VFPR netdevs don't have any HW queues associated with them and 
> we would like
> to use the PF queues for the xmit.
> I was also looking into some way of passing the port id via skb 
> parameter to the
> dev_queue_xmit() call so that the PF xmit routine can do a directed 
> transmit to a specifc VF.
> Is skb->cb an option to pass this info?
> dst_metadata approach would work  too if it is acceptable.

I don't think we can trust skb->cb to be set to anything meaningful
when the skb is received by the lower device.