Re: [patch net-next 3/5] net: sched: introduce block mechanism to handle netif_keep_dst calls

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 11:33:58AM CET, daniel@iogearbox.net wrote:
>On 11/04/2017 10:55 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:15:54PM CET, daniel@iogearbox.net wrote:
>> > On 11/03/2017 06:19 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>
>> > > 
>> > > Couple of classifiers call netif_keep_dst directly on q->dev. That is
>> > > not possible to do directly for shared blocke where multiple qdiscs are
>> > > owning the block. So introduce a infrastructure to keep track of the
>> > > block owners in list and use this list to implement block variant of
>> > > netif_keep_dst.
>> > > 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>
>> > [...]
>> > > +struct tcf_block_owner_item {
>> > > +	struct list_head list;
>> > > +	struct Qdisc *q;
>> > > +	enum tcf_block_binder_type binder_type;
>> > > +};
>> > > +
>> > > +static void
>> > > +tcf_block_owner_netif_keep_dst(struct tcf_block *block,
>> > > +			       struct Qdisc *q,
>> > > +			       enum tcf_block_binder_type binder_type)
>> > > +{
>> > > +	if (block->keep_dst &&
>> > > +	    binder_type != TCF_BLOCK_BINDER_TYPE_CLSACT_INGRESS)
>> > 
>> > Why we need to keep dst on TCF_BLOCK_BINDER_TYPE_CLSACT_EGRESS ?
>> > I presume this enum means sch_handle_egress() ? dst is dropped
>> > later ...
>> 
>> This is because of the bpf check:
>>         if (fp->dst_needed && !(tp->q->flags & TCQ_F_INGRESS))
>>                 netif_keep_dst(qdisc_dev(tp->q));
>> 
>> I just maintain the same logic here.
>
>No, that's a wrong claim, really ...
>
>clsact in general hooks into the same logic as ingress, so TC_H_CLSACT
>as major needs to reuse TC_H_INGRESS, and qdiscs set up as such set
>TCQ_F_INGRESS as flags. For clsact that means both your block binder
>types for clsact here (ingress/egress).

Ah, indeed, I missed this. I will rename TCQ_F_INGRESS to TCQ_F_CLSACT
as a part of this patchset too.


>
>Please make sure that your other changes don't have similar assumption.

They don't. Thanks for the review!