From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>,
Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
stable@dpdk.org, Ali Alnubani <alialnu@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/failsafe: fix source port ID in Rx packets
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 18:54:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1609324.Zy8sxAcIVK@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190418164624.GG4889@6wind.com>
18/04/2019 18:46, Adrien Mazarguil:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 05:51:18PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 18/04/2019 17:39, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > 18/04/2019 17:32, Adrien Mazarguil:
> > > > When passed to the application, Rx packets retain the port ID value
> > > > originally set by slave devices. Unfortunately these IDs have no meaning to
> > > > applications, which are typically unaware of their existence.
> > > >
> > > > This confuses those caring about the source port field in mbufs (m->port)
> > > > which experience issues ranging from traffic drop to crashes.
> > [...]
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Override source port in Rx packets.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Make Rx packets originate from this PMD instance instead of one of its
> > > > + * slaves. This is mandatory to avoid breaking applications.
> > > > + */
> <snip>
> > > "slave" is a wording from bonding.
> > > In failsafe, it is sub-device, isn't it?
>
> I don't mind, although grep shows a couple of comments talking about slaves
> already. Either way I think it fits as those are failsafe's pets, as in
> failsafe does whatever it wants to them and they don't have a say :)
>
> Does it warrant a v3?
Yes please, except if Ferruh is already doing the change on apply.
> > > > +static void
> > > > +failsafe_rx_set_port(struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts, uint16_t port)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i != nb_pkts; ++i)
> > > > + rx_pkts[i]->port = port;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > uint16_t
> > > > failsafe_rx_burst(void *queue,
> > > > struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
> > > > @@ -87,6 +102,9 @@ failsafe_rx_burst(void *queue,
> > > > sdev = sdev->next;
> > > > } while (nb_rx == 0 && sdev != rxq->sdev);
> > > > rxq->sdev = sdev;
> > > > + if (nb_rx)
> > > > + failsafe_rx_set_port(rx_pkts, nb_rx,
> > > > + rxq->priv->data->port_id);
> > > > return nb_rx;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > I'm afraid the performance drop to be hard.
>
> Mbufs are still hot from the oven at this stage, so it's not *that*
> expensive. I don't see a more efficient approach.
Yes, Ali did some quick tests showing no perf drop.
> > > How the port id in mbuf is used exactly?
>
> Applications that dissociate Rx itself from packet processing, or whenever a
> networking stack is involved. Basically every time some code wonders where a
> packet comes from due to lack of context and looks at m->port for the
> answer (e.g. checking that a packet arrives on the right port given its
> destination address).
>
> > > What crash are you seeing?
>
> None, thankfully. In my specific use case, 6WINDGate's stack simply drops
> traffic coming from unknown ports.
>
> However nothing prevents applications from using m->port as an index of some
> array they allocated to quickly retrieve port context without looking it
> up. They wouldn't expect indices they do not know about in there; assuming
> it will result in a crash is not far fetched.
>
> > Another way to fix it without performance drop would be to add
> > a new driver op to set the top-level port id.
> > This top-level id would be stored in the private structure of the port,
> > initialized with the port id of the port itself, and used to fill mbufs.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Adding a new devop as a fix would be a problem for stable releases, so this
> patch is definitely needed, at least as a first step.
>
> I'm not against a new API, however would it be worth the trouble? Especially
> considering it would only be used by failsafe-like drivers with something to
> hide from applications which is not the main use case.
>
> For some PMDs, this operation could only be done at init time before port ID
> is stored in private Rx queue data for fast retrieval. Retrieving it through
> a pointer so it can be updated anytime would make it more expensive than
> necessary for them.
I don't understand this comment.
The port id is currently retrieved via some pointers already.
I suggest to look at private structure, it is not different.
> It's understood that having failsafe in the dataplane has a cost, but even
> with the proposed fix, that cost is dwarfed by the amount of work done by a
> true PMD (and the application) for Rx processing.
>
> My suggestion is to wait for someone to complain about the performance
> compared to what they had before that fix, only then see what we can do.
OK
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-18 16:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20190418130419.25675-1-adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
2019-04-18 15:32 ` [dpdk-stable] " Adrien Mazarguil
2019-04-18 15:39 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Thomas Monjalon
2019-04-18 15:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-04-18 16:46 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2019-04-18 16:54 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2019-04-18 17:09 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2019-04-18 17:43 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-04-18 15:51 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2019-04-18 17:20 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] " Adrien Mazarguil
2019-04-18 18:51 ` Ferruh Yigit
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=1609324.Zy8sxAcIVK@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=alialnu@mellanox.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=gaetan.rivet@6wind.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).