From: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: "Hu, Jiayu" <jiayu.hu@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Kinsella, Ray" <ray.kinsella@intel.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"Gilmore, Walter E" <walter.e.gilmore@intel.com>,
"Venkatesan, Venky" <venky.venkatesan@intel.com>,
"yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com" <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] Add GRO support in DPDK
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:53:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6B5C6BED-CAD4-4C51-8FB7-8509663B813B@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170123091550.212dca35@xeon-e3>
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:03:12 +0800
> Jiayu Hu <jiayu.hu@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> With the support of hardware segmentation techniques in DPDK, the
>> networking stack overheads of send-side of applications, which directly
>> leverage DPDK, have been greatly reduced. But for receive-side, numbers of
>> segmented packets seriously burden the networking stack of applications.
>> Generic Receive Offload (GRO) is a widely used method to solve the
>> receive-side issue, which gains performance by reducing the amount of
>> packets processed by the networking stack. But currently, DPDK doesn't
>> support GRO. Therefore, we propose to add GRO support in DPDK, and this
>> RFC is used to explain the basic DPDK GRO design.
>>
>> DPDK GRO is a SW-based packets assembly library, which provides GRO
>> abilities for numbers of protocols. In DPDK GRO, packets are merged
>> before returning to applications and after receiving from drivers.
>>
>> In DPDK, GRO is a capability of NIC drivers. That support GRO or not and
>> what GRO types are supported are up to NIC drivers. Different drivers may
>> support different GRO types. By default, drivers enable all supported GRO
>> types. For applications, they can inquire the supported GRO types by
>> each driver, and can control what GRO types are applied. For example,
>> ixgbe supports TCP and UDP GRO, but the application just needs TCP GRO.
>> The application can disable ixgbe UDP GRO.
>>
>> To support GRO, a driver should provide a way to tell applications what
>> GRO types are supported, and provides a GRO function, which is in charge
>> of assembling packets. Since different drivers may support different GRO
>> types, their GRO functions may be different. For applications, they don't
>> need extra operations to enable GRO. But if there are some GRO types that
>> are not needed, applications can use an API, like
>> rte_eth_gro_disable_protocols, to disable them. Besides, they can
>> re-enable the disabled ones.
>>
>> The GRO function processes numbers of packets at a time. In each
>> invocation, what GRO types are applied depends on applications, and the
>> amount of packets to merge depends on the networking status and
>> applications. Specifically, applications determine the maximum number of
>> packets to be processed by the GRO function, but how many packets are
>> actually processed depends on if there are available packets to receive.
>> For example, the receive-side application asks the GRO function to
>> process 64 packets, but the sender only sends 40 packets. At this time,
>> the GRO function returns after processing 40 packets. To reassemble the
>> given packets, the GRO function performs an "assembly procedure" on each
>> packet. We use an example to demonstrate this procedure. Supposing the
>> GRO function is going to process packetX, it will do the following two
>> things:
>> a. Find a L4 assembly function according to the packet type of
>> packetX. A L4 assembly function is in charge of merging packets of a
>> specific type. For example, TCPv4 assembly function merges packets
>> whose L3 IPv4 and L4 is TCP. Each L4 assembly function has a packet
>> array, which keeps the packets that are unable to assemble.
>> Initially, the packet array is empty;
>> b. The L4 assembly function traverses own packet array to find a
>> mergeable packet (comparing Ethernet, IP and L4 header fields). If
>> finds, merges it and packetX via chaining them together; if doesn't,
>> allocates a new array element to store packetX and updates element
>> number of the array.
>> After performing the assembly procedure to all packets, the GRO function
>> combines the results of all packet arrays, and returns these packets to
>> applications.
>>
>> There are lots of ways to implement the above design in DPDK. One of the
>> ways is:
>> a. Drivers tell applications what GRO types are supported via
>> dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get;
>> b. When initialize, drivers register own GRO function as a RX
>> callback, which is invoked inside rte_eth_rx_burst. The name of the
>> GRO function should be like xxx_gro_receive (e.g. ixgbe_gro_receive).
>> Currently, the RX callback can only process the packets returned by
>> dev->rx_pkt_burst each time, and the maximum packet number
>> dev->rx_pkt_burst returns is determined by each driver, which can't
>> be interfered by applications. Therefore, to implement the above GRO
>> design, we have to modify current RX implementation to make driver
>> return packets as many as possible until the packet number meets the
>> demand of applications or there are not available packets to receive.
>> This modification is also proposed in patch:
>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/055887.html;
>> c. The GRO types to apply and the maximum number of packets to merge
>> are passed by resetting RX callback parameters. It can be achieved by
>> invoking rte_eth_rx_callback;
>> d. Simply, we can just store packet addresses into the packet array.
>> To check one element, we need to fetch the packet via its address.
>> However, this simple design is not efficient enough. Since whenever
>> checking one packet, one pointer dereference is generated. And a
>> pointer dereference always causes a cache line miss. A better way is
>> to store some rules in each array element. The rules must be the
>> prerequisites of merging two packets, like the sequence number of TCP
>> packets. We first compare the rules, then retrieve the packet if the
>> rules match. If storing the rules causes the packet array structure
>> is cache-unfriendly, we can store a fixed-length signature of the
>> rules instead. For example, the signature can be calculated by
>> performing XOR operation on IP addresses. Both design can avoid
>> unnecessary pointer dereferences.
>
>
> Since DPDK does burst mode already, GRO is a lot less relevant.
> GRO in Linux was invented because there is no burst mode in the receive API.
>
> If you look at VPP in FD.io you will see they already do aggregration and
> steering at the higher level in the stack.
>
> The point of GRO is that it is generic, no driver changes are necessary.
> Your proposal would add a lot of overhead, and cause drivers to have to
> be aware of higher level flows.
NACK
The design is not super clear to me here and we need to understand the impact to DPDK, performance and the application. I would like to have a clean transparent design to the application and as little impact on performance as possible.
Let discuss this as I am not sure my previous concerns were addressed in this RFC.
Regards,
Keith
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-23 21:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-23 13:03 Jiayu Hu
2017-01-23 17:15 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-01-23 21:53 ` Wiles, Keith [this message]
2017-01-24 1:43 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-24 3:23 ` Jiayu Hu
2017-01-24 5:25 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-01-24 10:33 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-24 14:48 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-01-24 19:45 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-24 20:09 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-01-24 21:04 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-01-25 3:39 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-01-25 9:51 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-02-07 6:00 ` Jiayu Hu
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=6B5C6BED-CAD4-4C51-8FB7-8509663B813B@intel.com \
--to=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jiayu.hu@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=ray.kinsella@intel.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=venky.venkatesan@intel.com \
--cc=walter.e.gilmore@intel.com \
--cc=yuanhan.liu@linux.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 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).