From: "Nicolas de Pesloüan" <nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com>
To: Jesse Gross <jesse@kernel.org>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
shemminger@linux-foundation.org, kaber@trash.net,
fubar@us.ibm.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net,
xiaosuo@gmail.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6] net: vlan: make non-hw-accel rx path similar to hw-accel
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 08:54:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D996B30.3080408@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin-VVOLQgPA7+CrtBdntnO-0C+R+g@mail.gmail.com>
Le 03/04/2011 22:38, Jesse Gross a écrit :
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Nicolas de Pesloüan
> <nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Le 02/04/2011 12:26, Jiri Pirko a écrit :
>>>
>>> Now there are 2 paths for rx vlan frames. When rx-vlan-hw-accel is
>>> enabled, skb is untagged by NIC, vlan_tci is set and the skb gets into
>>> vlan code in __netif_receive_skb - vlan_hwaccel_do_receive.
>>>
>>> For non-rx-vlan-hw-accel however, tagged skb goes thru whole
>>> __netif_receive_skb, it's untagged in ptype_base hander and reinjected
>>>
>>> This incosistency is fixed by this patch. Vlan untagging happens early in
>>> __netif_receive_skb so the rest of code (ptype_all handlers, rx_handlers)
>>> see the skb like it was untagged by hw.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko<jpirko@redhat.com>
>
> You saw Eric B.'s recent patch trying to tackle the same issues, right?:
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/190229
Yes, of course I saw it.
>>> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
>>> index 3da9fb0..bfe9fce 100644
>>> --- a/net/core/dev.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
>>> @@ -3130,6 +3130,12 @@ another_round:
>>>
>>> __this_cpu_inc(softnet_data.processed);
>>>
>>> + if (skb->protocol == cpu_to_be16(ETH_P_8021Q)) {
>>> + skb = vlan_untag(skb);
>>> + if (unlikely(!skb))
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>
>> I like the general idea of this patch, but I don't like the idea of
>> re-inserting specific code inside __netif_receive_skb.
>>
>> You made a great work removing most - if not all - device specific parts
>> from __netif_receive_skb, by introducing rx_handler.
>>
>> I think the above part (and vlan_untag) should be moved to a vlan_rx_handler
>> that would be set on the net_devices that are the parent of a vlan
>> net_device and are NOT hwaccel.
>>
>> vlan_rx_handler would return RX_HANDLER_ANOTHER if skb holds a tagged frame
>> (skb->dev changed) and RX_HANDLER_PASS if skb holds an untagged frame
>> (skb->dev unchanged).
>
> It would be nice to merge all of this together. One complication is
> the interaction of bridging and vlan on the same device. Some people
> want to have a bridge for each vlan and a bridge for untagged packets.
> On older kernels with vlan accelerated hardware this was possible
> because vlan devices would get packets before bridging and on current
> kernels it is possible with ebtables rules. If we use rx_handler for
> both I believe we would need to extend it some to allow multiple
> handlers.
I totally agree.
Remember that Jiri's original proposal (last summer) was to have several rx_handlers per net_device.
I still think we need several of them, because the network stack need to be generic and allow for
any complex stacking setup. The rx_handler framework may need to be enhanced for that, but I think
it is the right tool to do all those per net_device specific features.
>> This would also cause protocol handlers to receive the untouched (tagged)
>> frame, if no setup required the frame to be untagged, which I think is the
>> right thing to do.
>
> At the very least we need to make sure that these packets are marked
> as PACKET_OTHERHOST because protocol handlers don't pay attention to
> the vlan field.
Agreed.
>>> @@ -3177,7 +3183,7 @@ ncls:
>>> ret = deliver_skb(skb, pt_prev, orig_dev);
>>> pt_prev = NULL;
>>> }
>>> - if (vlan_hwaccel_do_receive(&skb)) {
>>> + if (vlan_do_receive(&skb)) {
>>> ret = __netif_receive_skb(skb);
>>> goto out;
>>> } else if (unlikely(!skb))
>>
>> Why are you calling __netif_receive_skb here? Can't we simply goto
>> another_round?
>
> This code (other than the name change) predates the
> another_round/rx_handler changes.
Yes, you are right. Let's keep this for a possible follow-up patch, to avoid skb reinjection when it
is not strictly necessary.
Nicolas.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-04 6:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-02 10:26 [patch net-next-2.6] net: vlan: make non-hw-accel rx path similar to hw-accel Jiri Pirko
2011-04-02 15:55 ` Stephen Hemminger
2011-04-02 18:27 ` Jiri Pirko
2011-04-03 9:27 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2011-04-03 13:22 ` Jiri Pirko
2011-04-03 15:23 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2011-04-03 20:38 ` Jesse Gross
2011-04-04 6:54 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan [this message]
2011-04-04 7:14 ` Jiri Pirko
2011-04-04 19:00 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2011-04-04 19:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-04-04 20:29 ` Jiri Pirko
2011-04-04 20:47 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2011-04-04 20:50 ` Jesse Gross
2011-04-04 21:04 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2011-04-05 7:25 ` Jiri Pirko
2011-04-05 7:26 ` Jiri Pirko
2011-04-04 20:30 ` Jiri Pirko
2011-04-04 20:51 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2011-04-05 7:19 ` Jiri Pirko
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=4D996B30.3080408@gmail.com \
--to=nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com \
--cc=andy@greyhouse.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=fubar@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jesse@kernel.org \
--cc=jpirko@redhat.com \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xiaosuo@gmail.com \
/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).