From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f54.google.com (mail-pj1-f54.google.com [209.85.216.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C91FC86264; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:13:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.54 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709154795; cv=none; b=e7VyAF7ywEU5a+smTueFcIzE8/gWe1Ubt8BWfKW8ANm6visRP3Vt7YRVP3N1w0IP47rYFoRkAewbPLQH21Oa11gZF5IZK8aALM269bqjCUR4QaaPc89mof0lVGIrJZd0IG5CFszDQeFiJaJAtAAwtKNBOIns8J6oiOLwLBhDu3Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709154795; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZRuRIsMpD/qNiI4RajYL+i1p5TZOP2DQdTRWpedwetE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=dydvrZpRTAbjHl0S4NZCHMM0J+LCsfdoS/ucbHIJnIQkaWTt5LtZCsHH91K6GO5DtFWRNnzt/OEFKfdrD+iWQKh4ZJestDxw3+afRqFy4VGlfouyA9Qj2y/xjLIcOco50RuIHjcoFegdWMQnfiAFPdQrce1COaJAATyVjFD+gMY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=aCH830rX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.54 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="aCH830rX" Received: by mail-pj1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-299d3b09342so101532a91.2; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:13:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1709154793; x=1709759593; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:references :in-reply-to:message-id:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=GY/HrwWaBwZhe3j8OEXaoWSbdjtDuL8LBjhse5O8BB0=; b=aCH830rXxGyZDRUCLwZf3/rqQMpRSTq3vYHToFb8qKNTCHgYFBkcDSHDP0uOFM1W7f Dw6ziIMlVfM+2JYtMwUyWmUyN7e7FEH0TuBgsoBE6HEoIqXZxuvEScWfb2LZ+Ft0+F59 j+Y60OrVE8iFKTq0m3zwLnnq/F0x+D/lx4de441NhmYNEEge+ISchkg3JOZ/FIdTqW1B pNoSMgHRe2eOOX/eeS9zcW2FGOoKDMD1EzctWuJRXO53ZZ5BT9XojMvFoG8rkaZp5DvJ xSu6ildFBkr+P01c0hJIQOrdLIVA3cGBuqy0XDvf6G00t3Vr6MIqJy7jiuJSi0E3cbsa GfkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709154793; x=1709759593; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:references :in-reply-to:message-id:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=GY/HrwWaBwZhe3j8OEXaoWSbdjtDuL8LBjhse5O8BB0=; b=V3YWEEZp124LUI000AcnPUF1S3/YFfx4nLNGA5Z8GfRXy/+LkKfsrnDVqG9kEFvXGq /5CINyaexTau4DikeOfdiMZJS/WziD3N+wxbKZufx0ei/pGSD0izQ0E8oDfVYXyREOif MPHI8kYQvs95F8s2TahomVim68WcnJDKAmGLIfq74mSmcRl5YpenxviitRjp2XDIvNrl LgMgEldGmdYGBETGna6Tz3Rtp0OFahyEtsOFmLUiTjcBEYjmrbGPZ+a5nhVYETLtmbQb 3TUjYK/VXnpFoc4nGtMRuCJ5fMkwpIKpSVv1JZ6ZnOtXe5QoTiQeyrqvYpm8lQWAmaSx r1JA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVL+9Ank4pPSxeldMpcrrL4gzvzVNxEpVUmylgfHGLzs+y0xoLdMfAcgShou9j8sWFGv3Cet9NlZ4TT/4u1mWVJREMi X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyY6YLeDPxlt8uhrbdvFs8pIiVBPdeQH9mzITJt3Itv06yu215W o7u9GYk2XJWvr2ofG+6IhAyRSZUzH9syrBv1bRNAIS+gv4Aad+3g X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFI16FqIxaWxFZ9p9cpjTVJZDX3eJ9SDb+uSqYhBrOJRdqE7pBlVEhW0kgSI5ltMCGUIQYafA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:795:b0:29a:8b5a:892a with SMTP id l21-20020a17090b079500b0029a8b5a892amr331490pjz.39.1709154792819; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:13:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([98.97.43.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s12-20020a17090ad48c00b0029aac9c523fsm2131pju.47.2024.02.28.13.13.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:13:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:13:08 -0800 From: John Fastabend To: Jamal Hadi Salim , John Fastabend Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, deb.chatterjee@intel.com, anjali.singhai@intel.com, namrata.limaye@intel.com, tom@sipanda.io, mleitner@redhat.com, Mahesh.Shirshyad@amd.com, Vipin.Jain@amd.com, tomasz.osinski@intel.com, jiri@resnulli.us, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, vladbu@nvidia.com, horms@kernel.org, khalidm@nvidia.com, toke@redhat.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, victor@mojatatu.com, pctammela@mojatatu.com, dan.daly@intel.com, andy.fingerhut@gmail.com, chris.sommers@keysight.com, mattyk@nvidia.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <65dfa1e4aee1b_2beb32081c@john.notmuch> In-Reply-To: References: <20240225165447.156954-1-jhs@mojatatu.com> <65df6935db67e_2a12e2083b@john.notmuch> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v12 00/15] Introducing P4TC (series 1) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:11=E2=80=AFPM John Fastabend > wrote: > > > > Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > > This is the first patchset of two. In this patch we are submitting = 15 which > > > cover the minimal viable P4 PNA architecture. > > > > > > __Description of these Patches__ > > > > > > Patch #1 adds infrastructure for per-netns P4 actions that can be c= reated on > > > as need basis for the P4 program requirement. This patch makes a sm= all incision > > > into act_api. Patches 2-4 are minimalist enablers for P4TC and have= no > > > effect the classical tc action (example patch#2 just increases the = size of the > > > action names from 16->64B). > > > Patch 5 adds infrastructure support for preallocation of dynamic ac= tions. > > > > > > The core P4TC code implements several P4 objects. > > > 1) Patch #6 introduces P4 data types which are consumed by the rest= of the code > > > 2) Patch #7 introduces the templating API. i.e. CRUD commands for t= emplates > > > 3) Patch #8 introduces the concept of templating Pipelines. i.e CRU= D commands > > > for P4 pipelines. > > > 4) Patch #9 introduces the action templates and associated CRUD com= mands. > > > 5) Patch #10 introduce the action runtime infrastructure. > > > 6) Patch #11 introduces the concept of P4 table templates and assoc= iated > > > CRUD commands for tables. > > > 7) Patch #12 introduces runtime table entry infra and associated CU= commands. > > > 8) Patch #13 introduces runtime table entry infra and associated RD= commands. > > > 9) Patch #14 introduces interaction of eBPF to P4TC tables via kfun= c. > > > 10) Patch #15 introduces the TC classifier P4 used at runtime. > > > > > > Daniel, please look again at patch #15. > > > > > > There are a few more patches (5) not in this patchset that deal wit= h test > > > cases, etc. > > > > > > What is P4? > > > ----------- > > > > > > The Programming Protocol-independent Packet Processors (P4) is an o= pen source, > > > domain-specific programming language for specifying data plane beha= vior. > > > > > > The current P4 landscape includes an extensive range of deployments= , products, > > > projects and services, etc[9][12]. Two major NIC vendors, Intel[10]= and AMD[11] > > > currently offer P4-native NICs. P4 is currently curated by the Linu= x > > > Foundation[9]. > > > > > > On why P4 - see small treatise here:[4]. > > > > > > What is P4TC? > > > ------------- > > > > > > P4TC is a net-namespace aware P4 implementation over TC; meaning, a= P4 program > > > and its associated objects and state are attachend to a kernel _net= ns_ structure. > > > IOW, if we had two programs across netns' or within a netns they ha= ve no > > > visibility to each others objects (unlike for example TC actions wh= ose kinds are > > > "global" in nature or eBPF maps visavis bpftool). > > > > [...] > > > > Although I appreciate a good amount of work went into building above = I'll > > add my concerns here so they are not lost. These are architecture con= cerns > > not this line of code needs some tweak. > > > > - It encodes a DSL into the kernel. Its unclear how we pick which DS= L gets > > pushed into the kernel and which do not. Do we take any DSL folks = can code > > up? > > I would prefer a lower level intermediate langauge. My view is th= is is > > a lesson we should have learned from OVS. OVS had wider adoption a= nd > > still struggled in some ways my belief is this is very similar to = OVS. > > (Also OVS was novel/great at a lot of things fwiw.) > > > > - We have a general purpose language in BPF that can implement the P= 4 DSL > > already. I don't see any need for another set of code when the end= goal > > is running P4 in Linux network stack is doable. Typically we rejec= t > > duplicate things when they don't have concrete benefits. > > > > - P4 as a DSL is not optimized for general purpose CPUs, but > > rather hardware pipelines. Although it can be optimized for CPUs i= ts > > a harder problem. A review of some of the VPP/DPDK work here is us= eful. > > > > - P4 infrastructure already has a p4c backend this is adding another= P4 > > backend instead of getting the rather small group of people to wor= k on > > a single backend we are now creating another one. > > > > - Common reasons I think would justify a new P4 backend and implemen= tation > > would be: speed efficiency, or expressiveness. I think this > > implementation is neither more efficient nor more expressive. Conc= rete > > examples on expressiveness would be interesting, but I don't see a= ny. > > Loops were mentioned once but latest kernels have loop support. > > > > - The main talking point for many slide decks about p4tc is hardware= > > offload. This seems like the main benefit of pushing the P4 DSL in= to the > > kernel. But, we have no hw implementation, not even a vendor stepp= ing up > > to comment on this implementation and how it will work for them. H= W > > introduces all sorts of interesting problems that I don't see how = we > > solve in this framework. For example a few off the top of my head:= > > syncing current state into tc, how does operator program tc inside= > > constraints, who writes the p4 models for these hardware devices, = do > > they fit into this 'tc' infrastructure, partial updates into hardw= are > > seems unlikely to work for most hardware, ... > > > > - The kfuncs are mostly duplicates of map ops we already have in BPF= API. > > The motivation by my read is to use netlink instead of bpf command= s. I > > don't agree with this, optimizing for some low level debug a devel= oper > > uses is the wrong design space. Actual users should not be deployi= ng > > this via ssh into boxes. The workflow will not scale and really we= need > > tooling and infra to land P4 programs across the network. This is = orders > > of more pain if its an endpoint solution and not a middlebox/switc= h > > solution. As a switch solution I don't see how p4tc sw scales to e= ven TOR > > packet rates. So you need tooling on top and user interact with th= e > > tooling not the Linux widget/debugger at the bottom. > > > > - There is no performance analysis: The comment was functionality be= fore > > performance which I disagree with. If it was a first implementatio= n and > > we didn't have a way to do P4 DSL already than I might agree, but = here > > we have an existing solution so it should be at least as good and = should > > be better than existing backend. A software datapath adoption is g= oing > > to be critically based on performance. I don't see taking even a 5= % hit > > when porting over to P4 from existing datapath. > > > > Commentary: I think its 100% correct to debate how the P4 DSL is > > implemented in the kernel. I can't see why this is off limits somehow= this > > patch set proposes an approach there could be many approaches. BPF co= mes up > > not because I'm some BPF zealot that needs P4 DSL in BPF, but because= it > > exists today there is even a P4 backend. Fundamentally I don't see th= e > > value add we get by creating two P4 pipelines this is going to create= > > duplication all the way up to the P4 tooling/infra through to the ker= nel. > > From your side you keep saying I'm bike shedding and demanding BPF, b= ut > > from my perspective your introducing another entire toolchain simply > > because you want some low level debug commands that 99% of P4 users s= hould > > not be using or caring about. > > > > To try and be constructive some things that would change my mind woul= d > > be a vendor showing how hardware can be used. This would be compellin= g. > > Or performance showing its somehow gets a more performant implementat= ion. > > Or lastly if the current p4c implementation is fundamentally broken > > somehow. > > > = > John, > With all due respect we are going back again over the same points, > recycled many times over to which i have responded to you many times. > It's gettting tiring. This is exactly why i called it bikeshedding. > Let's just agree to disagree. Yep we agree to disagree and I put them them as a summary so others can see them and think it over/decide where they stand on it. In the end you don't need my ACK here, but I wanted my opinion summarized. > = > cheers, > jamal > = > > Thanks > > John