All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>,
	jiri@resnulli.us, daniel@iogearbox.net,
	simon.horman@netronome.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com,
	davem@davemloft.net, jhs@mojatatu.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v2 3/3] net: sched: cls_u32 add bit to specify software only rules
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:21:31 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56CFFCFB.4060508@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56CFF89E.8070602@intel.com>

On 16-02-25 11:02 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> On 2/25/2016 3:20 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
>> In the initial implementation the only way to stop a rule from being
>> inserted into the hardware table was via the device feature flag.
>> However this doesn't work well when working on an end host system
>> where packets are expect to hit both the hardware and software
>> datapaths.
>>
>> For example we can imagine a rule that will match an IP address and
>> increment a field. If we install this rule in both hardware and
>> software we may increment the field twice. To date we have only
>> added support for the drop action so we have been able to ignore
>> these cases. But as we extend the action support we will hit this
>> example plus more such cases. Arguably these are not even corner
>> cases in many working systems these cases will be common.
>>
>> To avoid forcing the driver to always abort (i.e. the above example)
>> this patch adds a flag to add a rule in software only. A careful
>> user can use this flag to build software and hardware datapaths
>> that work together. One example we have found particularly useful
>> is to use hardware resources to set the skb->mark on the skb when
>> the match may be expensive to run in software but a mark lookup
>> in a hash table is cheap. The idea here is hardware can do in one
>> lookup what the u32 classifier may need to traverse multiple lists
>> and hash tables to compute. The flag is only passed down on inserts
>> on deletion to avoid stale references in hardware we always try
> 
> I think this is supposed to be a new sentence starting with 'On deletion'

Yep.

>> to remove a rule if it exists.
>>
>> The flags field is part of the classifier specific options. Although
>> it is tempting to lift this into the generic structure doing this
>> proves difficult do to how the tc netlink attributes are implemented
>> along with how the dump/change routines are called. There is also
>> precedence for putting seemingly generic pieces in the specific
>> classifier options such as TCA_U32_POLICE, TCA_U32_ACT, etc. So
>> although not ideal I've left FLAGS in the u32 options as well as it
>> simplifies the code greatly and user space has already learned how
>> to manage these bits ala 'tc' tool.
>>
>> Another thing if trying to update a rule we require the flags to
>> be unchanged. This is to force user space, software u32 and
>> the hardware u32 to keep in sync. Thanks to Simon Horman for
>> catching this case.
>>

[...]

>> u32_policy[TCA_U32_MAX + 1] = {
>>       [TCA_U32_SEL]        = { .len = sizeof(struct tc_u32_sel) },
>>       [TCA_U32_INDEV]        = { .type = NLA_STRING, .len = IFNAMSIZ },
>>       [TCA_U32_MARK]        = { .len = sizeof(struct tc_u32_mark) },
>> +    [TCA_U32_FLAGS]        = { .len = NLA_U32 },
> should be  .type = NLA_U32
> 

Yep stupid typo. I think I'm going to write some smatch files to
catch these sorts of things they should be detectable pragmatically.

Thanks.

>> <snip>
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-02-26  7:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-02-25 23:19 [net-next PATCH v2 0/3] tc software only flag John Fastabend
2016-02-25 23:19 ` [net-next PATCH v2 1/3] net: sched: consolidate offload decision in cls_u32 John Fastabend
2016-02-25 23:20 ` [net-next PATCH v2 2/3] net: cls_u32: move TC offload feature bit into cls_u32 offload logic John Fastabend
2016-02-25 23:20 ` [net-next PATCH v2 3/3] net: sched: cls_u32 add bit to specify software only rules John Fastabend
2016-02-26  7:02   ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2016-02-26  7:21     ` John Fastabend [this message]
2016-02-26 10:29   ` Jiri Pirko
2016-02-26 14:29     ` John Fastabend
2016-02-25 23:24 ` [net-next PATCH v2 0/3] tc software only flag John Fastabend

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=56CFFCFB.4060508@gmail.com \
    --to=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
    --cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=simon.horman@netronome.com \
    --cc=sridhar.samudrala@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.