netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev-9jONkmmOlFHEE9lA1F8Ukti2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>
To: "netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet
	<eric.dumazet-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Tom Herbert <tom-BjP2VixgY4xUbtYUoyoikg@public.gmane.org>,
	"iovisor-dev-9jONkmmOlFHEE9lA1F8Ukti2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org"
	<iovisor-dev-9jONkmmOlFHEE9lA1F8Ukti2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>,
	John Fastabend
	<john.fastabend-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs-jkUAjuhPggJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann
	<borkmann-FeC+5ew28dpmcu3hnIyYJQ@public.gmane.org>,
	David Miller <davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org>,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo-Cap9r6Oaw4JrovVCs/uTlw@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Explaining RX-stages for XDP
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:32:37 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160927113237.7138c097@redhat.com> (raw)


Let me try in a calm way (not like [1]) to explain how I imagine that
the XDP processing RX-stage should be implemented. As I've pointed out
before[2], I'm proposing splitting up the driver into RX-stages.  This
is a mental-model change, I hope you can follow my "inception" attempt.

The basic concept behind this idea is, if the RX-ring contains
multiple "ready" packets, then the kernel was too slow, processing
incoming packets. Thus, switch into more efficient mode, which is a
"packet-vector" mode.

Today, our XDP micro-benchmarks looks amazing, and they are!  But once
real-life intermixed traffic is used, then we loose the XDP I-cache
benefit.  XDP is meant for DoS protection, and an attacker can easily
construct intermixed traffic.  Why not fix this architecturally?

Most importantly concept: If XDP return XDP_PASS, do NOT pass the
packet up the network stack immediately (that would flush I-cache).
Instead store the packet for the next RX-stage.  Basically splitting
the packet-vector into two packet-vectors, one for network-stack and
one for XDP.  Thus, intermixed XDP vs. netstack not longer have effect
on XDP performance.

The reason for also creating an XDP packet-vector, is to move the
XDP_TX transmit code out of the XDP processing stage (and future
features).  This maximize I-cache availability to the eBPF program,
and make eBPF performance more uniform across drivers.


Inception:
 * Instead of individual packets, see it as a RX packet-vector.
 * XDP should be seen as a stage *before* the network stack gets called.

If your mind can handle it: I'm NOT proposing a RX-vector of 64-packets.
I actually want N-packet per vector (8-16).  As the NIC HW RX process
runs concurrently, and by the time it takes to process N-packets, more
packets have had a chance to arrive in the RX-ring queue.

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouertho
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

[1] https://mid.mail-archive.com/netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org/msg127043.html

[2] http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2016/01/15/51  

[3] http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2016/04/19/89

             reply	other threads:[~2016-09-27  9:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-27  9:32 Jesper Dangaard Brouer via iovisor-dev [this message]
     [not found] ` <20160927113237.7138c097-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-09-28  2:12   ` Explaining RX-stages for XDP Alexei Starovoitov via iovisor-dev
     [not found]     ` <20160928021242.GA77695-+o4/htvd0TDFYCXBM6kdu7fOX0fSgVTm@public.gmane.org>
2016-09-28 10:44       ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer via iovisor-dev
     [not found]         ` <20160928124431.351d7180-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-09-29  4:44           ` Alexei Starovoitov via iovisor-dev

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=20160927113237.7138c097@redhat.com \
    --to=iovisor-dev-9jonkmmolfhee9la1f8ukti2o/jbrioy@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=borkmann-FeC+5ew28dpmcu3hnIyYJQ@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=brouer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=eric.dumazet-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=jhs-jkUAjuhPggJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=john.fastabend-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=pablo-Cap9r6Oaw4JrovVCs/uTlw@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=saeedm-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=tom-BjP2VixgY4xUbtYUoyoikg@public.gmane.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).