Re: [PATCHv7 bpf-next 0/3] xdp: add a new helper for dev map multicast support

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>]

>David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/14/20 6:29 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> This patch is for xdp multicast support. which has been discussed before[0],
>>> The goal is to be able to implement an OVS-like data plane in XDP, i.e.,
>>> a software switch that can forward XDP frames to multiple ports.
>>>
>>> To achieve this, an application needs to specify a group of interfaces
>>> to forward a packet to. It is also common to want to exclude one or more
>>> physical interfaces from the forwarding operation - e.g., to forward a
>>> packet to all interfaces in the multicast group except the interface it
>>> arrived on. While this could be done simply by adding more groups, this
>>> quickly leads to a combinatorial explosion in the number of groups an
>>> application has to maintain.
>>>
>>> To avoid the combinatorial explosion, we propose to include the ability
>>> to specify an "exclude group" as part of the forwarding operation. This
>>> needs to be a group (instead of just a single port index), because there
>>> may have multi interfaces you want to exclude.
>>>
>>> Thus, the logical forwarding operation becomes a "set difference"
>>> operation, i.e. "forward to all ports in group A that are not also in
>>> group B". This series implements such an operation using device maps to
>>> represent the groups. This means that the XDP program specifies two
>>> device maps, one containing the list of netdevs to redirect to, and the
>>> other containing the exclude list.
>>>
>>> To achieve this, I re-implement a new helper bpf_redirect_map_multi()
>>> to accept two maps, the forwarding map and exclude map. If user
>>> don't want to use exclude map and just want simply stop redirecting back
>>> to ingress device, they can use flag BPF_F_EXCLUDE_INGRESS.
>>>
>>> The 2nd and 3rd patches are for usage sample and testing purpose, so there
>>> is no effort has been made on performance optimisation. I did same tests
>>> with pktgen(pkt size 64) to compire with xdp_redirect_map(). Here is the
>>> test result(the veth peer has a dummy xdp program with XDP_DROP directly):
>>>
>>> Version         | Test                                   | Native | Generic
>>> 5.8 rc1         | xdp_redirect_map       i40e->i40e      |  10.0M |   1.9M
>>> 5.8 rc1         | xdp_redirect_map       i40e->veth      |  12.7M |   1.6M
>>> 5.8 rc1 + patch | xdp_redirect_map       i40e->i40e      |  10.0M |   1.9M
>>> 5.8 rc1 + patch | xdp_redirect_map       i40e->veth      |  12.3M |   1.6M
>>> 5.8 rc1 + patch | xdp_redirect_map_multi i40e->i40e      |   7.2M |   1.5M
>>> 5.8 rc1 + patch | xdp_redirect_map_multi i40e->veth      |   8.5M |   1.3M
>>> 5.8 rc1 + patch | xdp_redirect_map_multi i40e->i40e+veth |   3.0M |  0.98M
>>>
>>> The bpf_redirect_map_multi() is slower than bpf_redirect_map() as we loop
>>> the arrays and do clone skb/xdpf. The native path is slower than generic
>>> path as we send skbs by pktgen. So the result looks reasonable.
>>>
>>> Last but not least, thanks a lot to Jiri, Eelco, Toke and Jesper for
>>> suggestions and help on implementation.
>>>
>>> [0] https://xdp-project.net/#Handling-multicast
>>>
>>> v7: Fix helper flag check
>>>     Limit the *ex_map* to use DEVMAP_HASH only and update function
>>>     dev_in_exclude_map() to get better performance.
>> 
>> Did it help? The performance numbers in the table above are the same as
>> in v6...
>> 
>
> If there is only 1 entry in the exclude map, then the numbers should be
> about the same.

I would still expect the lack of the calls to devmap_get_next_key() to
at least provide a small speedup, no? That the numbers are completely
unchanged looks a bit suspicious...

-Toke