Re: [xdp-hints] Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 11/12] mlx5: Support RX XDP metadata

[Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 4:29 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 4:02 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 2:59 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Support RX hash and timestamp metadata kfuncs. We need to pass in the cqe
> >> >> > pointer to the mlx5e_skb_from* functions so it can be retrieved from the
> >> >> > XDP ctx to do this.
> >> >>
> >> >> So I finally managed to get enough ducks in row to actually benchmark
> >> >> this. With the caveat that I suddenly can't get the timestamp support to
> >> >> work (it was working in an earlier version, but now
> >> >> timestamp_supported() just returns false). I'm not sure if this is an
> >> >> issue with the enablement patch, or if I just haven't gotten the
> >> >> hardware configured properly. I'll investigate some more, but figured
> >> >> I'd post these results now:
> >> >>
> >> >> Baseline XDP_DROP:         25,678,262 pps / 38.94 ns/pkt
> >> >> XDP_DROP + read metadata:  23,924,109 pps / 41.80 ns/pkt
> >> >> Overhead:                   1,754,153 pps /  2.86 ns/pkt
> >> >>
> >> >> As per the above, this is with calling three kfuncs/pkt
> >> >> (metadata_supported(), rx_hash_supported() and rx_hash()). So that's
> >> >> ~0.95 ns per function call, which is a bit less, but not far off from
> >> >> the ~1.2 ns that I'm used to. The tests where I accidentally called the
> >> >> default kfuncs cut off ~1.3 ns for one less kfunc call, so it's
> >> >> definitely in that ballpark.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not doing anything with the data, just reading it into an on-stack
> >> >> buffer, so this is the smallest possible delta from just getting the
> >> >> data out of the driver. I did confirm that the call instructions are
> >> >> still in the BPF program bytecode when it's dumped back out from the
> >> >> kernel.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Toke
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Oh, that's great, thanks for running the numbers! Will definitely
> >> > reference them in v4!
> >> > Presumably, we should be able to at least unroll most of the
> >> > _supported callbacks if we want, they should be relatively easy; but
> >> > the numbers look fine as is?
> >>
> >> Well, this is for one (and a half) piece of metadata. If we extrapolate
> >> it adds up quickly. Say we add csum and vlan tags, say, and maybe
> >> another callback to get the type of hash (l3/l4). Those would probably
> >> be relevant for most packets in a fairly common setup. Extrapolating
> >> from the ~1 ns/call figure, that's 8 ns/pkt, which is 20% of the
> >> baseline of 39 ns.
> >>
> >> So in that sense I still think unrolling makes sense. At least for the
> >> _supported() calls, as eating a whole function call just for that is
> >> probably a bit much (which I think was also Jakub's point in a sibling
> >> thread somewhere).
> >
> > imo the overhead is tiny enough that we can wait until
> > generic 'kfunc inlining' infra is ready.
> >
> > We're planning to dual-compile some_kernel_file.c
> > into native arch and into bpf arch.
> > Then the verifier will automatically inline bpf asm
> > of corresponding kfunc.
>
> Is that "planning" or "actively working on"? Just trying to get a sense
> of the time frames here, as this sounds neat, but also something that
> could potentially require quite a bit of fiddling with the build system
> to get to work? :)

"planning", but regardless how long it takes I'd rather not
add any more tech debt in the form of manual bpf asm generation.
We have too much of it already: gen_lookup, convert_ctx_access, etc.