On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 23:08, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com> wrote: > > On 5/20/2024 10:42 PM, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 19:43, Stephen Hemminger > > <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 20 May 2024 18:49:19 +0100 > >> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 5/2/2024 10:31 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >>>> There were multiple issues in the RSS queue support in the TAP > >>>> driver. This required extensive rework of the BPF support. > >>>> > >>>> Change the BPF loading to use bpftool to > >>>> create a skeleton header file, and load with libbpf. > >>>> The BPF is always compiled from source so less chance that > >>>> source and instructions diverge. Also resolves issue where > >>>> libbpf and source get out of sync. The program > >>>> is only loaded once, so if multiple rules are created > >>>> only one BPF program is loaded in kernel. > >>>> > >>>> The new BPF program only needs a single action. > >>>> No need for action and re-classification step. > >>>> > >>>> It also fixes the missing bits from the original. > >>>> - supports setting RSS key per flow > >>>> - level of hash can be L3 or L3/L4. > >>>> > >>>> Bugzilla ID: 1329 > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The libbpf version in my Ubuntu box, installed with package manager, is > >>> 'libbpf.so.0.5.0', so it doesn't satisfy the requirement and bpf support > >>> is not compiled for me. > >>> > >>> > >>> @Christian, 'libbpf.so.0.5.0'seems old, it is from 2021, do you know is > >>> there a reason Ubuntu stick to this version? And can we expect an update > >>> soon? > >>> > >>> > >>> @Patric, I assume test environment also doesn't have 'libbpf', version: > >>> '>= 1.0' which we need to test this feature. > >>> Is it possible to update test environment to justify this dependency? > >>> > >>> I think we need to verify at least build (with and without dependency > >>> met) for the set. > >> > >> The BPF API changed a lot, and it is not really possible to support > >> both. > > > > It can be done, but it is a _lot_ of work and requires a lot of shims, > > so for something optional it's not really worth it. Given libbpf 1.0 > > also broke ABI, Ubuntu 22.04 and older cannot really get a new version > > as it's incompatible, so this pmd will simply be skipped there. I > > think it's fine. 24.04 has a new one. > > > > Does Ubuntu 24.04 have libbpf >= 1.0 ?
Yes: https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=libbpf-dev&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all
