On 16-02-24 12:40 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:04:40AM CET, a...@vadai.me wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:03:21AM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>>> In the initial implementation the only way to stop a rule from being
>>> inserted into the hardware table was via the device feature flag.
>>> However this doesn't work well when working on an end host system
>>> where packets are expect to hit both the hardware and software
>>> datapaths.
>>>
>>> For example we can imagine a rule that will match an IP address and
>>> increment a field. If we install this rule in both hardware and
>>> software we may increment the field twice. To date we have only
>>> added support for the drop action so we have been able to ignore
>>> these cases. But as we extend the action support we will hit this
>>> example plus more such cases. Arguably these are not even corner
>>> cases in many working systems these cases will be common.
>>>
>>> To avoid forcing the driver to always abort (i.e. the above example)
>>> this patch adds a flag to add a rule in software only. A careful
>>> user can use this flag to build software and hardware datapaths
>>> that work together. One example we have found particularly useful
>>> is to use hardware resources to set the skb->mark on the skb when
>>> the match may be expensive to run in software but a mark lookup
>>> in a hash table is cheap. The idea here is hardware can do in one
>>> lookup what the u32 classifier may need to traverse multiple lists
>>> and hash tables to compute. The flag is only passed down on inserts
>>> on deletion to avoid stale references in hardware we always try
>>> to remove a rule if it exists.
>>>
>>> Notice we do not add a hardware only case here. If you were to
>>> add a hardware only case then you are stuck with the problem
>>> of where to stick the software representation of that filter
>>> rule. If its stuck on the same filter list as the software only and
>>> software/hardware rules it then has to be walked over and ignored
>>> in the classify path. The overhead is not huge but is measurable.
>>> And with so much work being invested in speeding up rx/tx of
>>> pkt processing this is unacceptable IMO. The other option is to
>>> have a special hook just for hardware only resources. This is
>>> implemented in the next patch.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.r.fastab...@intel.com>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>
>>> -static bool u32_should_offload(struct net_device *dev)
>>> +static bool u32_should_offload(struct net_device *dev, u32 flags)
>>> {
>>> if (!(dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_TC))
>>> return false;
>>>
>>> - return dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc;
>>> + if (flags & TCA_U32_FLAGS_SOFTWARE)
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + if (!dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc)
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + return true;
>>> }
>> This function and flag should be a generic filter attribute - not just
>> u32.
>
> I agree, this should be generic.
>
> Regarding flags attr, we have the same situation as with other common
> attrs:
> TCA_U32_POLICE
> TCA_FLOW_POLICE
> TCA_CGROUP_POLICE
> TCA_BPF_POLICE
>
> TCA_U32_ACT
> TCA_FLOW_ACT
> TCA_CGROUP_ACT
> TCA_BPF_ACT
> TCA_FLOWER_ACT
>
> I guess we have no other choice then to have
> TCA_U32_FLAGS
> TCA_FLOWER_FLAGS etc :(
>
Sure if you want to lift it out of u32 I can do that. Seeing there are
no other users I planned to do it when I added the next hardware
classifier. But sure I can do it now and save a patch later.
The flags however likely stays with with TCA_U32_FLAGS until there is
some better way to group common attributes in 'tc' framework.
.John
