Re: [PATCH rfc 2/3] virtio-net: support receive timestamp

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 02:30:31PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 12:29 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22:32AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
> > >
> > > Add optional PTP hardware timestamp offload for virtio-net.
> > >
> > > Accurate RTT measurement requires timestamps close to the wire.
> > > Introduce virtio feature VIRTIO_NET_F_RX_TSTAMP. If negotiated, the
> > > virtio-net header is expanded with room for a timestamp. A host may
> > > pass receive timestamps for all or some packets. A timestamp is valid
> > > if non-zero.
> > >
> > > The timestamp straddles (virtual) hardware domains. Like PTP, use
> > > international atomic time (CLOCK_TAI) as global clock base. It is
> > > guest responsibility to sync with host, e.g., through kvm-clock.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_net.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_net.h
> > > index f6881b5b77ee..0ffe2eeebd4a 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_net.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_net.h
> > > @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
> > >                                        * Steering */
> > >  #define VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_MAC_ADDR 23        /* Set MAC address */
> > >
> > > +#define VIRTIO_NET_F_RX_TSTAMP         55    /* Host sends TAI receive time */
> > >  #define VIRTIO_NET_F_TX_HASH   56    /* Guest sends hash report */
> > >  #define VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT  57 /* Supports hash report */
> > >  #define VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS       60    /* Supports RSS RX steering */
> > > @@ -182,6 +183,17 @@ struct virtio_net_hdr_v1_hash {
> > >       };
> > >  };
> > >
> > > +struct virtio_net_hdr_v12 {
> > > +     struct virtio_net_hdr_v1 hdr;
> > > +     struct {
> > > +             __le32 value;
> > > +             __le16 report;
> > > +             __le16 flow_state;
> > > +     } hash;
> > > +     __virtio32 reserved;
> > > +     __virtio64 tstamp;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >  #ifndef VIRTIO_NET_NO_LEGACY
> > >  /* This header comes first in the scatter-gather list.
> > >   * For legacy virtio, if VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT is not negotiated, it must
> >
> >
> > So it looks like VIRTIO_NET_F_RX_TSTAMP should depend on both
> > VIRTIO_NET_F_RX_TSTAMP and VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT then?
> 
> Do you mean VIRTIO_NET_F_TX_TSTAMP depends on VIRTIO_NET_F_RX_TSTAMP?
> 
> I think if either is enabled we need to enable the extended layout.
> Regardless of whether TX_HASH or HASH_REPORT are enabled. If they are
> not, then those fields are ignored.

I mean do we waste the 8 bytes for hash if TSTAMP is set but HASH is not?
If TSTAMP depends on HASH then point is moot.



> > I am not sure what does v12 mean here.
> >
> > virtio_net_hdr_v1 is just with VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1,
> > virtio_net_hdr_v1_hash is with VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 and
> > VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT.
> >
> > So this one is virtio_net_hdr_hash_tstamp I guess?
> 
> Sounds better, yes, will change that.
> 
> This was an attempt at identifying the layout with the likely next
> generation of the spec, 1.2. Similar to virtio_net_hdr_v1. But that is
> both premature and not very helpful.