From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8E2A00E6
for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 18:54:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99F51BC10;
Thu, 18 Apr 2019 18:54:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
[66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F408C1BC08;
Thu, 18 Apr 2019 18:54:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F99254C9;
Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:54:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:54:25 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp;
bh=HPltJ1bT2iWG0l/1ccKnM5wAO6FjlrL8p4zMHJklDow=; b=YouQi9K2hoP3
banFsAujDKcpyB2wr1c5zt83KdjP5pjRRjc0xtigqqGsVLlJvlkIjdWqlMrgAw9m
w5SmdhOiwhNq7l+l5HOXc1SU7QHqrfSn83AJUCFHLFsLc+sON3xsHXU+IfV+vaTA
iywhv2kF2JfjyXfXN+d3o1SE5odRpGs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
:subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender
:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=HPltJ1bT2iWG0l/1ccKnM5wAO6FjlrL8p4zMHJklD
ow=; b=Fqnli80AjmBMTiShfLbrRQ7UV19aDdW6S87zVLrHkWr14aLmYJobKfhie
rMuqfjBGm7Yv/HhtRbd6AsLbwX1rj30/b/KtloTFtkZEX6zlDZNK+NvBtHPhStSN
fKkMfy3hcRwYJ/pjifXDZXTOzBrfJMPmMjnPjoQNK7wRk7vGWKZ9v0E4vVAEL6B1
N69cCAmhgIo1eEjCNavzO7u9JH6EKqVL4w6lbEyBrekPhpphMBWw5SU8JNl7AvvH
iuuXkMUBa8nbMg3l4vjf/eVuzgEMFFRCKV8OJED/MtTazbqNeWGNp4Hzf2gZ/ghg
ATaYO08corRNCVIZ/schzAp6JlaEg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:wKu4XDFKn37UFQEUi5waZHEVHRLnhfXtuknlRGiWYALii7_w2u96NQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrfeehgdegiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf
curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu
uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc
fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs
ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph
epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho
mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:wKu4XLNR4ZtBn_hjLf_Nh7ChHqKR4l1oLhP4YkM8sf15XYgYSruxlw>
<xmx:wKu4XIC3PnsiE-AHYok7hxs3brM_M3mytF-cnlEcOfZX2xiff0EQYQ>
<xmx:wKu4XKzWMseC-Ll-7bmI-y8L3kwxRFpRa9e4GNaD0bdMMEqFg-0iaA>
<xmx:wau4XKCKhJySY9t5uR7GvNpiHa2WfcaOSv-54FuCkxlJDJ53apQ3DQ>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C08A4E4383;
Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:54:23 -0400 (EDT)
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>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 18:54:22 +0200
Message-ID: <1609324.Zy8sxAcIVK@xps>
In-Reply-To: <20190418164624.GG4889@6wind.com>
References: <20190418130419.25675-1-adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
<2732210.eFvFzSlaYO@xps> <20190418164624.GG4889@6wind.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/failsafe: fix source port ID in Rx
packets
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20190418165422.QWS_Vq94PmkcBKzRPwYKZ5ESWA8eAziElZicIPVDp7k@z>
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