Re: [PATCH net-next v8 00/15] Introducing P4TC

John Fastabend
2023-11-17T18:37:28Z

Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 1:27 AM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > > We are seeking community feedback on P4TC patches.
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > What is P4?
> > > -----------
> >
> > I read the cover letter here is my high level takeaway.
> >
>
> At least you read the cover letter this time ;->

I read it last time as well. About mid way down I tried to
list the points (1-5) more concisely if folks want to get to the
meat of my argument quickly.

> > P4c-bpf backend exists and I don't see why we wouldn't use that as a starting
> > point.
>
> Are you familiar with P4 architectures? That code was for PSA (which
> is essentially for switches) we are doing PNA (which is more nic
> oriented).

Yes. But for folks that are not PSA is a switch architecture it
looks roughly like this,

parser -> ingress -> deparser -> pkt replication -> parser
-> egress
-> deparser
-> queueing

The gist is ingress/egress blocks hold your p4 logic (match action
tables usually) to xfrm headers, counters, registers, and so on. You
get one on ingress and one on egress to build your logic up.

And PNA is a roughly like this,

ingress -> parser -> control -> deparser -> accelerators -> host | network

An accelerators are externs more or less defined outside P4. Control has
all your metrics, header transforms, registers, and so on. And parser
well it parsers headers. Deparser is something we don't typically think
about much on sw side but it serializes the object back into a packet.
That is a rough couple line explanation.

You can also define whatever architecture like and there are some
ways to do that. But if you want to be a PSA or PNA you define those
blocks in your P4. The key idea is to have architectures that map
to a large set of different vendor hardware. Clearly sw and FPGAs
can build mostly any architecture needed.

As an editorial comment P4 is very much a hardware centric view of
the world when looking at P4 architectures. SW never needed these
because we mostly have general purpose CPUs.

> And yes, we used that code as a starting point and made the necessary
> changes needed to conform to PNA. We made it actually work better by
> using kfuncs.

Better performance? More P4 DSL program space implemented? The kfuncs
added are equivelant to map ops already in BPF but over 'tc' map types.
Or did I miss some kfuncs.

The p4c-ebpf backend already supports two models we could have added
the PNA model to it as well. Its actually simpler than PSA model
in many ways at least its fewer blocks. I think all this infrastructure
here could be unesseary with updates to p4c-ebpf.

>
> > At least the cover letter needs to explain why this path is not taken.
>
> I thought we had a reference to that backend - but will add it for the
> next update.
>
> > From the cover letter there appears to be bpf pieces and non-bpf pieces, but
> > I don't see any reason not to just land it all in BPF. Support exists and if
> > its missing some smaller things add them and everyone gets them vs niche P4
> > backend.
>
> Ok, i thought you said you read the cover letter. Reasons are well
> stated, primarily that we need to make sure all P4 programs work.

I don't think that is a very strong argument to use/build a p4c-tc
architecture and implementation instead of p4c-ebpf. I can't think
of any reason p4c-ebpf can't support all programs other than perhaps
its missing a few items. From a design side though it should be
capabable of any PSA, PNA, and many more architectures you come up
with.

And I'm genuinely curious what is missing so a list would be nice.
The missing block perhaps is a perfomant software TCAM, but I'm
not fully convinced that software should even bother to try and
duplicate a TCAM. If you need a performant TCAM buy hw with a TCAM
emulating one is always going to be slower. Have Intel/AMD/ARM
glue a TCAM to the core if its so useful.

To be clear p4c-tc is only targeting PNA programs not all P4 space.

>
> >
> > Without hardware support for any of this its impossible to understand how 'tc'
> > would work as a hardware offload interface for a p4 device so we need hardware
> > support to evaluate. For example I'm not even sure how you would take a BPF
> > parser into hardware on most network devices that aren't processor based.
> >
>
> P4 has nothing to do with parsers in hardware. Where did you get this
> requirement from?

P4 is/was primarily developed as a DSL to program hardware. We've
never figured out how to do a native Linux P4 controller for hardware.
There are a couple blockers for that in my opinion. First no one
has ever opened up the hardware to an OSS solution. Two its
never been entirely clear what the big win for enough people would be.
So we get targetted offloads, timestamp, vxlan, tso, ktls, even
heard quic offload yesterday. And its easy enough to just program
the hardware directly from user space.

So yes I think P4 has a lot to do with hardware, its probably
fair to say this p4c-tc thing isn't hardware. But, I think its
very limiting and the value of any p4 implementation in kernel
would be its ability to use hardware.

I'm not even convinced P4 is a good DSL for SW implementations.
I don't think its obvious how hw P4 and sw datapaths integrate
effectively. My opinion is p4c-tc is not moving us forward
here.

>
> > P4 has a P4Runtime I think most folks would prefer a P4 UI vs typing in 'tc'
> > commands so arguing for 'tc' UI is nice is not going to be very compelling.
> > Best we can say is it works well enough and we use it.
>
>
> The control plane interface is netlink. This part is not negotiable.
> You can write whatever you want on top of it(for example P4runtime
> using netlink as its southbound interface). We feel that tc - a well

Sure we need a low level interface for p4runtime to use and I
agree we don't need all blocks done at once.

> understood utility - is one we should make publicly available for the
> rest of the world to use. For example we have rust code that runs on
> top of netlink to do performance testing.

If updates/lookups from userspace is a performance vector you
care about I can't see how netlink is more efficient than a
mmapped bpf map. If you have data share it, but it seems
highly unlikely.

The argument I'm trying to make is netlink vs bpf maps vs
some other goo shouldn't matter to users because we should
build them higher level tooling to interact with the p4
objects. Then it comes down to performance in my opinion.
And if map updates matter I suspect netlink is relatively
slow.

>
> > more commentary below.
> >
> > >
> > > The Programming Protocol-independent Packet Processors (P4) is an open source,
> > > domain-specific programming language for specifying data plane behavior.
> > >
> > > The P4 ecosystem includes an extensive range of deployments, products, projects
> > > and services, etc[9][10][11][12].
> > >
> > > __What is P4TC?__
> > >
> > > P4TC is a net-namespace aware implementation, meaning multiple P4 programs can
> > > run independently in different namespaces alongside their appropriate state. The
> > > implementation builds on top of many years of Linux TC experiences.
> > > On why P4 - see small treatise here:[4].
> > >
> > > There have been many discussions and meetings since about 2015 in regards to
> > > P4 over TC[2] and we are finally proving the naysayers that we do get stuff
> > > done!
> > >
> > > A lot more of the P4TC motivation is captured at:
> > > https://github.com/p4tc-dev/docs/blob/main/why-p4tc.md
> > >
> > > **In this patch series we focus on s/w datapath only**.
> >
> > I don't see the value in adding 16676 lines of code for s/w only datapath
> > of something we already can do with p4c-ebpf backend.
>
> Please please stop this entitlement politics (which i frankly think
> you guys have been getting away with for a few years now).

I'm allowed to disagree with your architecture and propose what I think
is a betteer way to translate P4 into software.

Its common to argue against adding new code if it duplicates functionality
we already support.

> This code does not touch any core code - you guys constantly push code
> that touches core code and it is not unusual we have to pick up the
> pieces after but now you are going to call me out for the number of
> lines of code? Is it ok for you to write lines of code in the kernel
> but not me? Judge the technical work then we can have a meaningful
> discussion.

I think I'm judging the technical work here. Bullet points.

1. p4c-tc implementation looks like it should be slower than a
in terms of pkts/sec than a bpf implementation. Meaning
I suspect pipeline and objects laid out like this will lose
to a BPF program with an parser and single lookup. The p4c-ebpf
compiler should look to create optimized EBPF code not some
emulated switch topology.

2. p4c-tc control plan looks slower than a directly mmaped bpf
map. Doing a simple update vs a netlink msg. The argument
that BPF can't do CRUD (which we had offlist) seems incorrect
to me. Correct me if I'm wrong with details about why.

2. I don't see why ebpf can not support all P4 programs. Because
the DSL compiler side doesn't support the nic architecture
side to me indicates fixing the compiler is the direction
not pushing on the kernel.

3. Working in BPF framework will benefit more folks than a tc
framework. I just don't see a large user base of P4 software
running on Linux. It doesn't mean we can't have it in linux,
but worth considering. We have lots of niche stuff in the
kernel, but usually the niche thing doesn't have another
more common way to run it.

4. The win for P4 is not sw implementation. Its about getting
programmable hardware and this doesn't advance that goal
in any meaningful way as far as I can see.

5. By pushing the P4 model so low in the stack of tooling
you lose ability for compiler to do interesting things.
Combining match action tables, converting them to
switch statements or jumps, finding inverse operations
and removing them. I still think there is lots of unexplored
work on compiling P4 that has not been done.

>
> TBH, I am trying very hard to see if i should respond to any more
> comments from you. I was very happy with our original scriptable
> approach and you came out and banged on the table that you want ebpf.
> We spent 10 months of multiple people working on this code to make it
> ebpf friendly and now you want more (actually i am not sure what the
> hell you want).

I've made the above arguments on early versions of the code,
and when we talked, and even offered it in p4 working group.
It shouldn't be surprising I've not changed my opinion.

Its a argument against duplicating existing functionality with
something that is slower and doesn't give us HW P4 support. The
bullets above.

>
> > Or one of the other
> > backends already there. Namely take P4 programs and run them on CPUs in Linux.
> >
> > Also I suspect a pipelined datapath is going to be slower than a O(1) lookup
> > datapath so I'm guessing its slower than most datapaths we have already.
> >
> > What do we gain here over existing p4c-ebpf?
> >
>
> see above.

We are talking past eachother becaus here I argue it looks like a slow
datapath and you say 'see above' but what above was I meant to see?
That it doesn't have PNA support? Compared to PSA doing a PNA support
should be straightforward.

I disagree that software should try to emulate hardware to closely.
They are fundamentally different platforms. One has CAMs, TCAMs,
and LPMs and obscure instruction sets to make all this work. The other
is working on a general purpose CPU. I think slamming a hardware
architecture into software with emulated TCAMs and what not,
will be a losing performance proposition. Experience shows you can
either go SIMD direction and parrallize everything with these instructions
or you reduce the datapath to a single (or minimal set) of lookups.
Find a counter-example.

>
> > >
> > > __P4TC Workflow__
> > >
> > > These patches enable kernel and user space code change _independence_ for any
> > > new P4 program that describes a new datapath. The workflow is as follows:
> > >
> > > 1) A developer writes a P4 program, "myprog"
> > >
> > > 2) Compiles it using the P4C compiler[8]. The compiler generates 3 outputs:
> > > a) shell script(s) which form template definitions for the different P4
> > > objects "myprog" utilizes (tables, externs, actions etc).
> >
> > This is odd to me. I think packing around shell scrips as a program is not
> > very usable. Why not just an object file.
> >
> > > b) the parser and the rest of the datapath are generated
> > > in eBPF and need to be compiled into binaries.
> > > c) A json introspection file used for the control plane (by iproute2/tc).
> >
> > Why split up the eBPF and control plane like this? eBPF has a control plane
> > just use the existing one?
> >
>
> The cover letter clearly states that we are using netlink as the
> control api. Does eBPF support netlink?

But why? The statement is there but no rational is given. People are
used to it was maybe stated, but my argument is users of P4 shouldn't
be crafting netlink messages they need tooling if its netlink or BPF
or some new thing. So pick the most efficient tool for the job. Why
is netlink the most efficient option here.

>
> > >
> > > 3) The developer (or operator) executes the shell script(s) to manifest the
> > > functional "myprog" into the kernel.
> > >
> > > 4) The developer (or operator) instantiates "myprog" via the tc P4 filter
> > > to ingress/egress (depending on P4 arch) of one or more netdevs/ports.
> > >
> > > Example1: parser is an action:
> > > "tc filter add block 22 ingress protocol all prio 10 p4 pname myprog \
> > > action bpf obj $PARSER.o section parser/tc-ingress \
> > > action bpf obj $PROGNAME.o section p4prog/tc"
> > >
> > > Example2: parser explicitly bound and rest of dpath as an action:
> > > "tc filter add block 22 ingress protocol all prio 10 p4 pname myprog \
> > > prog tc obj $PARSER.o section parser/tc-ingress \
> > > action bpf obj $PROGNAME.o section p4prog/tc"
> > >
> > > Example3: parser is at XDP, rest of dpath as an action:
> > > "tc filter add block 22 ingress protocol all prio 10 p4 pname myprog \
> > > prog type xdp obj $PARSER.o section parser/xdp-ingress \
> > > pinned_link /path/to/xdp-prog-link \
> > > action bpf obj $PROGNAME.o section p4prog/tc"
> > >
> > > Example4: parser+prog at XDP:
> > > "tc filter add block 22 ingress protocol all prio 10 p4 pname myprog \
> > > prog type xdp obj $PROGNAME.o section p4prog/xdp \
> > > pinned_link /path/to/xdp-prog-link"
> > >
> > > see individual patches for more examples tc vs xdp etc. Also see section on
> > > "challenges" (on this cover letter).
> > >
> > > Once "myprog" P4 program is instantiated one can start updating table entries
> > > that are associated with myprog's table named "mytable". Example:
> > >
> > > tc p4ctrl create myprog/table/mytable dstAddr 10.0.1.2/32 \
> > > action send_to_port param port eno1
> >
> > As a UI above is entirely cryptic to most folks I bet.
> >
>
> But ebpf is not?

We don't need everything out the gate but my point is that the UI
should be abstracted away from the P4 programmer and operator at
this level. My observation that 'tc' is cryptic was just an off-hand
comment I don't think its relevant to the overall argument for or against,
what we should understand is how to map p4runtime or at least a
operator friendly UI onto the semantics.

>
> > myprog table is a BPF map? If so then I don't see any need for this just
> > interact with it like a BPF map. I suspect its some other object, but
> > I don't see any ratoinal for that.
>
> All the P4 objects sit in the TC domain. The datapath program is ebpf.
> Control is via netlink.

I'm missing something fundamental. What do we gain from this TC domain.
There are some TC maps for LPM and TCAMs we have LPM already in BPF
and TCAM you have could easily be added if you want to. Then entire
program runs to completion. Surely this is more performant. Throw in
XDP and the redirect never leaves the NIC, no skb, etc.

From the architecture side I don't think we need kernel objects
for pipelines and some P4 notion of match action tables those
can all be mapped into the BPF program. The packet never leaves
XDP. Performance is good on datapath and performance is good
on map update side. It looks like noise to me teaching the kernel
about P4 objects and types. More importantly you are constraining
the optimizations the compiler can make. Perhaps the compiler
wants no map at all and implements it as a switch stmt for
example. Maybe the compiler can find inverse operations and
fastpaths to short circuit. By forcing the model so low in
the stack you remove this ability.

>
>
> > >
> > > A packet arriving on ingress of any of the ports on block 22 will first be
> > > exercised via the (eBPF) parser to find the headers pointing to the ip
> > > destination address.
> > > The remainder eBPF datapath uses the result dstAddr as a key to do a lookup in
> > > myprog's mytable which returns the action params which are then used to execute
> > > the action in the eBPF datapath (eventually sending out packets to eno1).
> > > On a table miss, mytable's default miss action is executed.
> >
> > This chunk looks like standard BPF program. Parse pkt, lookup an action,
> > do the action.
> >
>
> Yes, the ebpf datapath does the parsing, and then interacts with
> kfuncs to the tc world before it (the ebpf datapath) executes the
> action.
> Note: ebpf did not invent any of that (parse, lookup, action). It has
> existed in tc for 20 years before ebpf existed.

Its not about who invented what. All this goes way back.

My point is the 'tc' world here looks unnecessary. It can be managed
from outside the kernel entirely.

>
> > > __Description of Patches__
> > >
> > > P4TC is designed to have no impact on the core code for other users
> > > of TC. IOW, you can compile it out but even if it compiled in and you dont use
> > > it there should be no impact on your performance.
> > >
> > > We do make core kernel changes. Patch #1 adds infrastructure for "dynamic"
> > > actions that can be created on "the fly" based on the P4 program requirement.
> >
> > the common pattern in bpf for this is to use a tail call map and populate
> > it at runtime and/or just compile your program with the actions. Here
> > the actions came from the p4 back up at step 1 so no reason we can't
> > just compile them with p4c.
> >
> > > This patch makes a small incision into act_api which shouldn't affect the
> > > performance (or functionality) of the existing actions. Patches 2-4,6-7 are
> > > minimalist enablers for P4TC and have no effect the classical tc action.
> > > Patch 5 adds infrastructure support for preallocation of dynamic actions.
> > >
> > > The core P4TC code implements several P4 objects.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > __Restating Our Requirements__
> > >
> > > The initial release made in January/2023 had a "scriptable" datapath (think u32
> > > classifier and pedit action). In this section we review the scriptable version
> > > against the current implementation we are pushing upstream which uses eBPF.
> > >
> > > Our intention is to target the TC crowd.
> > > Essentially developers and ops people deploying TC based infra.
> > > More importantly the original intent for P4TC was to enable _ops folks_ more than
> > > devs (given code is being generated and doesn't need humans to write it).
> >
> > I don't follow. humans wrote the p4.
> >
>
> But not the ebpf code, that is compiler generated. P4 is a higher
> level Domain specific language and ebpf is just one backend (others
> s/w variants include DPDK, Rust, C, etc)

Yes. I still don't follow. Of course ebpf is just one backend.

>
> > I think the intent should be to enable P4 to run on Linux. Ideally efficiently.
> > If the _ops folks are writing P4 great as long as we give them an efficient
> > way to run their p4 I don't think they care about what executes it.
> >
> > >
> > > With TC, we get whole "familiar" package of match-action pipeline abstraction++,
> > > meaning from the control plane all the way to the tooling infra, i.e
> > > iproute2/tc cli, netlink infra(request/resp, event subscribe/multicast-publish,
> > > congestion control etc), s/w and h/w symbiosis, the autonomous kernel control,
> > > etc.
> > > The main advantage is that we have a singular vendor-neutral interface via the
> > > kernel using well understood mechanisms based on deployment experience (and
> > > at least this part doesnt need retraining).
> >
> > A seemless p4 experience would be great. That looks like a tooling problem
> > at the p4c-backend and p4c-frontend problem. Rather than a bunch of 'tc' glue
> > I would aim for,
> >
> > $ p4c-* myprog.p4
> > $ p4cRun ./myprog
> >
> > And maybe some options like,
> >
> > $ p4cRun -i eth0 ./myprog
>
> Armchair lawyering and classical ML bikesheding

It was just an example of what I think the end goal should be.

>
> > Then use the p4runtime to interface with the system. If you don't like the
> > runtime then it should be brought up in that working group.
> >
> > >
> > > 1) Supporting expressibility of the universe set of P4 progs
> > >
> > > It is a must to support 100% of all possible P4 programs. In the past the eBPF
> > > verifier had to be worked around and even then there are cases where we couldnt
> > > avoid path explosion when branching is involved. Kfunc-ing solves these issues
> > > for us. Note, there are still challenges running all potential P4 programs at
> > > the XDP level - the solution to that is to have the compiler generate XDP based
> > > code only if it possible to map it to that layer.
> >
> > Examples and we can fix it.
>
> Right. Let me wait for you to fix something 5 years from now. I would
> never have used eBPF at all but the kfunc is what changed my mind.
>
> > >
> > > 2) Support for P4 HW and SW equivalence.
> > >
> > > This feature continues to work even in the presence of eBPF as the s/w
> > > datapath. There are cases of square-hole-round-peg scenarios but
> > > those are implementation issues we can live with.
> >
> > But no hw support.
> >
>
> This patcheset has nothing to do with offload (you read the cover
> letter?). All above is saying is that by virtue of using TC we have a
> path to a proven offload approach.

I'm arguing P4 is in a big part about programmable HW. If we merge
a P4 into the kernel all the way down to the p4 types and don't
consider how it works with hardware that is a non starter for me.

>
>
> > >
> > > 3) Operational usability
> > >
> > > By maintaining the TC control plane (even in presence of eBPF datapath)
> > > runtime aspects remain unchanged. So for our target audience of folks
> > > who have deployed tc including offloads - the comfort zone is unchanged.
> > > There is also the comfort zone of continuing to use the true-and-tried netlink
> > > interfacing.
> >
> > The P4 control plane should be P4Runtime.
> >
>
> And be my guest and write it on top of netlink.

But I would prefer it was a BPF map and gave my reasons above.

>
> cheers,
> jamal