Re: Scaling problem with a lot of AF_PACKET sockets on different interfaces

["Vitaly V. Bursov" <vitalyb@telenet.dn.ua>]

07.06.2013 17:33, Daniel Borkmann пишет:
> On 06/07/2013 04:17 PM, Vitaly V. Bursov wrote:
>> 07.06.2013 16:05, Daniel Borkmann пишет:
> [...]
>>>>> Ideas are welcome :)
>>>
>>> Probably, that depends on _your scenario_ and/or BPF filter, but would it be
>>> an alternative if you have only a few packet sockets (maybe one pinned to each
>>> cpu) and cluster/load-balance them together via packet fanout? (Where you
>>> bind the socket to ifindex 0, so that you get traffic from all devs...) That
>>> would at least avoid that "hot spot", and you could post-process the interface
>>> via sockaddr_ll. But I'd agree that this will not solve the actual problem you've
>>> observed. ;-)
>>
>> I was't aware of the ifindex 0 thing, it can help, thanks! Of course, if it'll
>> work for me (applications is a custom DHCP server) it'll surely
>> increase the overhead of BPF (I don't need to tap the traffic from all
>> interfaces), there are vlans, bridges and bonds - likely the server will receive
>> same packets multiple times and replies must be sent too...
>> but it still should be faster.
>
> Well, as already said, if you use a fanout socket group, then you won't receive the
> _exact_ same packet twice. Rather, packets are balanced by different policies among
> your packet sockets in that group. What you could do is to have a (e.g.) single BPF
> filter (jitted) for all those sockets that'll let needed packets pass and you can then
> access the interface they came from via sockaddr_ll, which then is further processed
> in your fast path (or dropped depending on the iface). There's also a BPF extension
> (BPF_S_ANC_IFINDEX) that lets you load the ifindex of the skb into the BPF accumulator,
> so you could also filter early from there for a range of ifindexes (in combination to
> bind the sockets to index 0). Probably that could work.

Thanks everybody, this should help a lot.

-- 
Vitaly