Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] af_packet: direct dma for packet ineterface

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>]

(next submission fix subj. ineterface -> interface)

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:51:55 -0800
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17-01-30 10:16 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:33:44 -0800 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> This adds ndo ops for upper layer objects to request direct DMA from
> >> the network interface into memory "slots". The slots must be DMA'able
> >> memory given by a page/offset/size vector in a packet_ring_buffer
> >> structure.
> >>
> >> The PF_PACKET socket interface can use these ndo_ops to do zerocopy
> >> RX from the network device into memory mapped userspace memory. For
> >> this to work drivers encode the correct descriptor blocks and headers
> >> so that existing PF_PACKET applications work without any modification.
> >> This only supports the V2 header formats for now. And works by mapping
> >> a ring of the network device to these slots. Originally I used V2
> >> header formats but this does complicate the driver a bit.
> >>
> >> V3 header formats added bulk polling via socket calls and timers
> >> used in the polling interface to return every n milliseconds. Currently,
> >> I don't see any way to support this in hardware because we can't
> >> know if the hardware is in the middle of a DMA operation or not
> >> on a slot. So when a timer fires I don't know how to advance the
> >> descriptor ring leaving empty descriptors similar to how the software
> >> ring works. The easiest (best?) route is to simply not support this.  
> > 
> > From a performance pov bulking is essential. Systems like netmap that
> > also depend on transferring control between kernel and userspace,
> > report[1] that they need at least bulking size 8, to amortize the overhead.
> >   
> 
> Bulking in general is not a problem it can be done on top of V2 implementation
> without issue. 

Good.

Notice, that the type of bulking I'm looking for can indirectly be
achieved via a queue, as long as there isn't a syscall per dequeue
involved. Looking at some af_packet example code, and your desc below,
it looks like af_packet is doing exactly what is needed, as it is
sync/spinning on a block_status bit.  (Lessons learned from ptr_ring,
indicate this might actually be more efficient)


> Its the poll timer that seemed a bit clumsy to implement.
> Looking at it again though I think we could do something if we cared to.
> I'm not convinced we would gain much though.

I actually think this would slowdown performance.

> Also v2 uses static buffer sizes so that every buffer is 2k or whatever
> size the user configures. V3 allows the buffer size to be updated at
> runtime which could be done in the drivers I suppose but would require
> some ixgbe restructuring.

I think we should stay with the V2 fixed fixed buffers, for performance
reasons.


> > [1] Figure 7, page 10, http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/papers/20120503-netmap-atc12.pdf
> > 
> >   
> >> It might be worth creating a new v4 header that is simple for drivers
> >> to support direct DMA ops with. I can imagine using the xdp_buff
> >> structure as a header for example. Thoughts?  
> > 
> > Likely, but I would like that we do a measurement based approach.  Lets
> > benchmark with this V2 header format, and see how far we are from
> > target, and see what lights-up in perf report and if it is something we
> > can address.  
> 
> Yep I'm hoping to get to this sometime this week.
> 
> > 
> >   
> >> The ndo operations and new socket option PACKET_RX_DIRECT work by
> >> giving a queue_index to run the direct dma operations over. Once
> >> setsockopt returns successfully the indicated queue is mapped
> >> directly to the requesting application and can not be used for
> >> other purposes. Also any kernel layers such as tc will be bypassed
> >> and need to be implemented in the hardware via some other mechanism
> >> such as tc offload or other offload interfaces.  
> > 
> > Will this also need to bypass XDP too?  
> 
> There is nothing stopping this from working with XDP but why would
> you want to run XDP here?
> 
> Dropping a packet for example is not really useful because its
> already in memory user space can read. Modifying the packet seems
> pointless user space can modify it. 
>
> Maybe pushing a copy of the packet
> to kernel stack is useful in some case? But I can't see where I would
> want this.

Wouldn't it be useful to pass ARP packets to kernel stack?
(E.g. if your HW filter is based on MAC addr match)


> > E.g. how will you support XDP_TX?  AFAIK you cannot remove/detach a
> > packet with this solution (and place it on a TX queue and wait for DMA
> > TX completion).
> >   
> 
> This is something worth exploring. tpacket_v2 uses a fixed ring with
> slots so all the pages are allocated and assigned to the ring at init
> time. To xmit a packet in this case the user space application would
> be required to leave the packet descriptor on the rx side pinned
> until the tx side DMA has completed. Then it can unpin the rx side
> and return it to the driver. This works if the TX/RX processing is
> fast enough to keep up. For many things this is good enough.

Sounds tricky.
 
> For some work loads though this may not be sufficient. In which
> case a tpacket_v4 would be useful that can push down a new set
> of "slots" every n packets. Where n is sufficiently large to keep
> the workload running. This is similar in many ways to virtio/vhost
> interaction.

This starts to sound like to need a page pool like facility with
pages premapped DMA and premapped to userspace...

> >   
[...]
> > 
> > Guess, I don't understand the details of the af_packet versions well
> > enough, but can you explain to me, how userspace knows what slots it
> > can read/fetch, and how it marks when it is complete/finished so the
> > kernel knows it can reuse this slot?
> >   
> 
> At init time user space allocates a ring of buffers. Each buffer has
> space to hold the packet descriptor + packet payload. The API gives this
> to the driver to initialize DMA engine and assign addresses. At init
> time all buffers are "owned" by the driver which is indicated by a status bit
> in the descriptor header.
> 
> Userspace can spin on the status bit to know when the driver has handed
> it to userspace. The driver will check the status bit before returning
> the buffer to the hardware. Then a series of kicks are used to wake up
> userspace (if its not spinning) and to wake up the driver if it is overrun
> and needs to return buffers into its pool (not implemented yet). The
> kick to wake up the driver could in a future v4 be used to push new
> buffers to the driver if needed.

As I wrote above, this status bit spinning approach is good and actually
achieving a bulking effect indirectly.


-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer