Re: [PATCH net-next RFC WIP] Patch for XDP support for virtio_net

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:05:51PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 16-11-03 05:34 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 04:29:22PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>>> - when XDP is attached disable all LRO using VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_GUEST_OFFLOADS_SET
> >>>>>   (not used by driver so far, designed to allow dynamic LRO control with
> >>>>>    ethtool)
> >>>>
> >>>> I see there is a UAPI bit for this but I guess we also need to add
> >>>> support to vhost as well? Seems otherwise we may just drop a bunch
> >>>> of packets on the floor out of handle_rx() when recvmsg returns larger
> >>>> than a page size. Or did I read this wrong...
> >>>
> >>> It's already supported host side. However you might
> >>> get some packets that were in flight when you attached.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Really I must have missed it I don't see any *GUEST_FEATURES* flag in
> >> ./drivers/vhost/?
> > 
> > It's all done by QEMU catching these commands and calling
> > ioctls on the tun/macvtap/packet socket.
> > 
> 
> Well at least for the tap vhost backend in linux that I found here,
> 
>  ./qemu/net/tap-linux.c
> 
> there is no LRO feature flag but that is OK I can get it working next
> week looks fairly straight forward.
> 
> [...]

This is because tun/tap is the reverse of virtio. LRO in virtio
maps to TSO in tun.
The relevant function is tap_fd_set_offload in QEMU.


> >> And if I try to merge the last email I sent out here. In mergeable and
> >> big_packets modes if LRO is off and MTU < PAGE_SIZE it seems we should
> >> always get physically contiguous data on a single page correct?
> > 
> > Unfortunately not in the mergeable buffer case according to spec, even though
> > linux hosts will do that, so it's fine to optimize for that
> > but need to somehow work in other cases e.g. by doing a data copy.
> > 
> 
> ah OK this makes sense I was looking at vhost implementation in Linux.
> 
> > 
> >> It
> >> may be at some offset in a page however. But the offset should not
> >> matter to XDP. If I read this right we wouldn't need to add a new
> >> XDP mode and could just use the existing merge or big modes. This would
> >> seem cleaner to me than adding a new mode and requiring a qemu option.
> >>
> >> Thanks for all the pointers by the way its very helpful.
> > 
> > So for mergeable we spend cycles trying to make buffers as small
> > as possible and I have a patch to avoid copies for that too,
> > I'll post it next week hopefully.
> > 
> 
> Good to know. I'll get the XDP stuff wrapped up next week or see
> if Srijeet wants to do it.
> 
> Thanks,
> John