Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 5/25/2021 7:19 PM, Eli Britstein wrote: On 5/19/2021 12:47 PM, Simon Horman wrote: External email: Use caution opening links or attachments On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 02:22:26PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 4/27/21 3:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: ... Hi Ilya, The code according to your suggestion is ready. But during the internal code review, Eli Britstein thought flow_api is netdev based, but the psample/sFlow offload is not netdev based, but dpif based. Maybe we should introduce dpif-offload-provider and have a dpf_offload_api, so it won't be related to a specific netdev, but to a dpif type. Could I know what's your opinion about it? This might be not bad idea in general. The problem is that if we'll introduce this kind of API, we'll need to remove the usage of netdev-offload API from all the layers higher than dpif implementation including dpif.c and make all offloading go through dpif-offload-provider. In general, I think, it might be good to have a separate dpif type, e.g. dpif-offload that will use netdev-offload APIs internally and provide offloading service. In this case, dpif_operate(), depending on offload configuration, will try to install flows to dpif-offload first and fallback to install flows to the main dpif implementation if offload failed or if it was partial (i.e. classification offloading). This way we will delete all the offloading related code from dpif-netdev and dpif-netlink and will have a unified offloading architecture. It's not easy to implement and there will be a lot of issues that we'll need to figure out how to fix (e.g. dpif-netdev performs upcalls by itself, so it will have to install resulted flows by calling a dpif_flow_put/operate and not install flows directly to its local flow tables). Anyway, this looks like a long run and will require rework of the whole offloading architecture, so might be a separate thing to work on. Thoughts? Hi Ilya, Hi Chris, I think that this approach makes sense in terms of an evolution of the internal offload APIs/architecture. And might lean itself to more advanced options in future - such as layered dpif implementations for some purpose. I do also there will be quite a lot of implementation challenges to overcome. Hi Ilya, Simon, This approach was initially thought of following the suggested design to have: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() The ofproto layer does not have any 'netdev' to pass, yet calling a new netdev based API (in flow_api) netdev_offload_recv. The initial approach was to pass const char *dpif_type, and in netdev-offload-tc.c just take the first netdev of this dpif type, and work on it. However, this didn't fit right, so we thought to have this new layer, but not as this layered design, but only to serve this case, at least at first. I also agree with Simon that there will be a lot of challenges. How about we will have phases towards such a complete design, also to better cope with those challenges? At the first phase we will just introduce such a layer (struct offload_api in struct dpif for example), with a dpif-offload-provider.h to declare it. There will be functions like dpif_offload_recv(), to be used for this sFlow support. At later phase, the further architecture refactoring (layering) can be done. What do you think? Hi Ilya, Any comments about Eli's suggestion? Thanks, Chris ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 5/19/2021 12:47 PM, Simon Horman wrote: External email: Use caution opening links or attachments On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 02:22:26PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 4/27/21 3:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: ... Hi Ilya, The code according to your suggestion is ready. But during the internal code review, Eli Britstein thought flow_api is netdev based, but the psample/sFlow offload is not netdev based, but dpif based. Maybe we should introduce dpif-offload-provider and have a dpf_offload_api, so it won't be related to a specific netdev, but to a dpif type. Could I know what's your opinion about it? This might be not bad idea in general. The problem is that if we'll introduce this kind of API, we'll need to remove the usage of netdev-offload API from all the layers higher than dpif implementation including dpif.c and make all offloading go through dpif-offload-provider. In general, I think, it might be good to have a separate dpif type, e.g. dpif-offload that will use netdev-offload APIs internally and provide offloading service. In this case, dpif_operate(), depending on offload configuration, will try to install flows to dpif-offload first and fallback to install flows to the main dpif implementation if offload failed or if it was partial (i.e. classification offloading). This way we will delete all the offloading related code from dpif-netdev and dpif-netlink and will have a unified offloading architecture. It's not easy to implement and there will be a lot of issues that we'll need to figure out how to fix (e.g. dpif-netdev performs upcalls by itself, so it will have to install resulted flows by calling a dpif_flow_put/operate and not install flows directly to its local flow tables). Anyway, this looks like a long run and will require rework of the whole offloading architecture, so might be a separate thing to work on. Thoughts? Hi Ilya, Hi Chris, I think that this approach makes sense in terms of an evolution of the internal offload APIs/architecture. And might lean itself to more advanced options in future - such as layered dpif implementations for some purpose. I do also there will be quite a lot of implementation challenges to overcome. Hi Ilya, Simon, This approach was initially thought of following the suggested design to have: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() The ofproto layer does not have any 'netdev' to pass, yet calling a new netdev based API (in flow_api) netdev_offload_recv. The initial approach was to pass const char *dpif_type, and in netdev-offload-tc.c just take the first netdev of this dpif type, and work on it. However, this didn't fit right, so we thought to have this new layer, but not as this layered design, but only to serve this case, at least at first. I also agree with Simon that there will be a lot of challenges. How about we will have phases towards such a complete design, also to better cope with those challenges? At the first phase we will just introduce such a layer (struct offload_api in struct dpif for example), with a dpif-offload-provider.h to declare it. There will be functions like dpif_offload_recv(), to be used for this sFlow support. At later phase, the further architecture refactoring (layering) can be done. What do you think? Thanks, Eli Kind regards, Simon ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 02:22:26PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 4/27/21 3:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: ... > > Hi Ilya, > > > > The code according to your suggestion is ready. But during the internal > > code review, Eli Britstein thought flow_api is netdev based, but the > > psample/sFlow offload is not netdev based, but dpif based. Maybe we > > should introduce dpif-offload-provider and have a dpf_offload_api, so > > it won't be related to a specific netdev, but to a dpif type. > > > > Could I know what's your opinion about it? > > This might be not bad idea in general. The problem is that if we'll > introduce this kind of API, we'll need to remove the usage of > netdev-offload API from all the layers higher than dpif implementation > including dpif.c and make all offloading go through > dpif-offload-provider. > > In general, I think, it might be good to have a separate dpif type, e.g. > dpif-offload that will use netdev-offload APIs internally and provide > offloading service. In this case, dpif_operate(), depending on offload > configuration, will try to install flows to dpif-offload first and > fallback to install flows to the main dpif implementation if offload > failed or if it was partial (i.e. classification offloading). This way > we will delete all the offloading related code from dpif-netdev and > dpif-netlink and will have a unified offloading architecture. It's not > easy to implement and there will be a lot of issues that we'll need to > figure out how to fix (e.g. dpif-netdev performs upcalls by itself, so it > will have to install resulted flows by calling a dpif_flow_put/operate > and not install flows directly to its local flow tables). Anyway, this > looks like a long run and will require rework of the whole offloading > architecture, so might be a separate thing to work on. Thoughts? Hi Ilya, Hi Chris, I think that this approach makes sense in terms of an evolution of the internal offload APIs/architecture. And might lean itself to more advanced options in future - such as layered dpif implementations for some purpose. I do also there will be quite a lot of implementation challenges to overcome. Kind regards, Simon ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 4/27/21 3:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: > On 3/24/2021 8:14 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 3/24/21 10:17 AM, Chris Mi wrote: >>> On 3/23/2021 10:24 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/5/21 4:27 AM, Chris Mi wrote: > Hi Ilya, > > I think about your suggestion recently. But I'm still not very clear > about the design. > Please see my reply below: > > On 3/1/2021 8:48 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: >>> Hi Simon, Ilya, >>> >>> Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? >>> It has been posted in the community for a long time >> In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other >> patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog >> (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) >> and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other >> patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can >> get to your patches faster. > OK, I see. >> For the series and comments from Eelco: >> I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still >> do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. >> Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? > I'm not sure if you are aware of that the psample netlink is different > from the ovs > netlink. Without offload, kernel sends missed packet and sFlow packet to > userspace > using the same netlink 'ovs_packet_family'. So they can use the same > handler thread. > But in order to offload sFlow action, we use psample kernel module to > send sampled > packets from kernel to userspace. The format for ovs netlink message and > psample > netlink messages are different. Hi. Sorry for late reply. Yes, I understand that message format is different, but it doesn't really matter. All the message-specific handling and parsing should happen inside the netdev_offload_tc_recv(). This function should have a prototype similar to dpif_netlink_recv(), i.e. it should receive a pointer to the struct dpif_upcall from the caller and fill it with data. Maybe other type of a generic data structure if it's really not possible to construct struct dpif_upcall. >> From the >> architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code >> from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications >> and might cause lots of issues in the future. >> >> I'd say that design should look like this: >> >> handler thread -> >> dpif_recv() -> >> dpif_netlink_recv() -> >> netdev_offload_recv() -> >> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> >> nl_sock_recv() > In order to use the handler thread, I'm not sure if we should add psample > socket > fd to every handler's epoll_fd. If we should do that, we should consider > how to > differentiate if the event comes from ovs or psample netlink. Maybe we > should > allocate a special port number for psample and assign it to > event.data.u32. > Anyway, that's the details. If this is the right direction, I'll think > about it. >> Last three calls should be implemented. >> >> The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from >> above call chain and make it: >> >> handler thread -> >> netdev_offload_recv() -> >> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> >> nl_sock_recv() > If we throw away dpif part, maybe we have to write some duplicate epoll > code > for psample only. And we can't block in nl_sock_recv(). Maybe we have to > add > psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. So we have to change the > dpif > somehow. There is no need to implement any epoll_fd logic for psample. You may only use handler with handler_id == 0. Only this handler will receive psample upcalls. netdev_offload_recv_wait() should be implemented similar to how dpif_netlink_recv_wait() implemented for windows case, i.e. it will call nl_sock_wait(nl_sock, POLLIN) for the psample netlink socket. There is no need to block and you're never blocking anywhere because your're calling nl_sock_recv(..., wait = false) which will use MSG_DONTWAIT while actually receiving a message. >>> Hi Ilya, >>> >>> With this new design, the code will be changed greatly. I'm not unwilling >>> to change it. >>> The effort is not small. So before I start, I want to make sure that it is >>> feasible. >>> >>> Yes, we won't block in nl_sock_recv(), but the handler thread will be >>> blocked in poll_block(). >>> If any of the vport netlink socket is readable , it will be waken up by >>> kernel. If we don't use >>> epoll_ctl to add the psample
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
Hi Ilya, Could you please take a look if you have time? Thanks, Chris On 5/11/2021 4:11 PM, Chris Mi wrote: On 4/27/2021 9:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: On 3/24/2021 8:14 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/24/21 10:17 AM, Chris Mi wrote: On 3/23/2021 10:24 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/5/21 4:27 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Ilya, I think about your suggestion recently. But I'm still not very clear about the design. Please see my reply below: On 3/1/2021 8:48 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Simon, Ilya, Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? It has been posted in the community for a long time In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can get to your patches faster. OK, I see. For the series and comments from Eelco: I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? I'm not sure if you are aware of that the psample netlink is different from the ovs netlink. Without offload, kernel sends missed packet and sFlow packet to userspace using the same netlink 'ovs_packet_family'. So they can use the same handler thread. But in order to offload sFlow action, we use psample kernel module to send sampled packets from kernel to userspace. The format for ovs netlink message and psample netlink messages are different. Hi. Sorry for late reply. Yes, I understand that message format is different, but it doesn't really matter. All the message-specific handling and parsing should happen inside the netdev_offload_tc_recv(). This function should have a prototype similar to dpif_netlink_recv(), i.e. it should receive a pointer to the struct dpif_upcall from the caller and fill it with data. Maybe other type of a generic data structure if it's really not possible to construct struct dpif_upcall. From the architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications and might cause lots of issues in the future. I'd say that design should look like this: handler thread -> dpif_recv() -> dpif_netlink_recv() -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() In order to use the handler thread, I'm not sure if we should add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. If we should do that, we should consider how to differentiate if the event comes from ovs or psample netlink. Maybe we should allocate a special port number for psample and assign it to event.data.u32. Anyway, that's the details. If this is the right direction, I'll think about it. Last three calls should be implemented. The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from above call chain and make it: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() If we throw away dpif part, maybe we have to write some duplicate epoll code for psample only. And we can't block in nl_sock_recv(). Maybe we have to add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. So we have to change the dpif somehow. There is no need to implement any epoll_fd logic for psample. You may only use handler with handler_id == 0. Only this handler will receive psample upcalls. netdev_offload_recv_wait() should be implemented similar to how dpif_netlink_recv_wait() implemented for windows case, i.e. it will call nl_sock_wait(nl_sock, POLLIN) for the psample netlink socket. There is no need to block and you're never blocking anywhere because your're calling nl_sock_recv(..., wait = false) which will use MSG_DONTWAIT while actually receiving a message. Hi Ilya, With this new design, the code will be changed greatly. I'm not unwilling to change it. The effort is not small. So before I start, I want to make sure that it is feasible. Yes, we won't block in nl_sock_recv(), but the handler thread will be blocked in poll_block(). If any of the vport netlink socket is readable , it will be waken up by kernel. If we don't use epoll_ctl to add the psample netlink socket to the handler's epoll fd, we can't receive the psample packet as soon as possible. That means we can only receive the sampled packet when there is a miss upcall. I added some debug message in ovs epoll code and got above conclusion. But I'm not the expert of the epoll API, so I'm not sure if I missed anything. Handler thread wakes up on POLLIN on epoll_fd itself, not on the event on one of the file descriptors added to epoll. epoll_fd is added to a thread's
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 4/27/2021 9:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: On 3/24/2021 8:14 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/24/21 10:17 AM, Chris Mi wrote: On 3/23/2021 10:24 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/5/21 4:27 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Ilya, I think about your suggestion recently. But I'm still not very clear about the design. Please see my reply below: On 3/1/2021 8:48 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Simon, Ilya, Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? It has been posted in the community for a long time In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can get to your patches faster. OK, I see. For the series and comments from Eelco: I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? I'm not sure if you are aware of that the psample netlink is different from the ovs netlink. Without offload, kernel sends missed packet and sFlow packet to userspace using the same netlink 'ovs_packet_family'. So they can use the same handler thread. But in order to offload sFlow action, we use psample kernel module to send sampled packets from kernel to userspace. The format for ovs netlink message and psample netlink messages are different. Hi. Sorry for late reply. Yes, I understand that message format is different, but it doesn't really matter. All the message-specific handling and parsing should happen inside the netdev_offload_tc_recv(). This function should have a prototype similar to dpif_netlink_recv(), i.e. it should receive a pointer to the struct dpif_upcall from the caller and fill it with data. Maybe other type of a generic data structure if it's really not possible to construct struct dpif_upcall. From the architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications and might cause lots of issues in the future. I'd say that design should look like this: handler thread -> dpif_recv() -> dpif_netlink_recv() -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() In order to use the handler thread, I'm not sure if we should add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. If we should do that, we should consider how to differentiate if the event comes from ovs or psample netlink. Maybe we should allocate a special port number for psample and assign it to event.data.u32. Anyway, that's the details. If this is the right direction, I'll think about it. Last three calls should be implemented. The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from above call chain and make it: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() If we throw away dpif part, maybe we have to write some duplicate epoll code for psample only. And we can't block in nl_sock_recv(). Maybe we have to add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. So we have to change the dpif somehow. There is no need to implement any epoll_fd logic for psample. You may only use handler with handler_id == 0. Only this handler will receive psample upcalls. netdev_offload_recv_wait() should be implemented similar to how dpif_netlink_recv_wait() implemented for windows case, i.e. it will call nl_sock_wait(nl_sock, POLLIN) for the psample netlink socket. There is no need to block and you're never blocking anywhere because your're calling nl_sock_recv(..., wait = false) which will use MSG_DONTWAIT while actually receiving a message. Hi Ilya, With this new design, the code will be changed greatly. I'm not unwilling to change it. The effort is not small. So before I start, I want to make sure that it is feasible. Yes, we won't block in nl_sock_recv(), but the handler thread will be blocked in poll_block(). If any of the vport netlink socket is readable , it will be waken up by kernel. If we don't use epoll_ctl to add the psample netlink socket to the handler's epoll fd, we can't receive the psample packet as soon as possible. That means we can only receive the sampled packet when there is a miss upcall. I added some debug message in ovs epoll code and got above conclusion. But I'm not the expert of the epoll API, so I'm not sure if I missed anything. Handler thread wakes up on POLLIN on epoll_fd itself, not on the event on one of the file descriptors added to epoll. epoll_fd is added to a thread's poll loop by poll_fd_wait(handler->epoll_fd, POLLIN); If you will call nl_sock_wait() on psample socket, this
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 3/24/2021 8:14 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/24/21 10:17 AM, Chris Mi wrote: On 3/23/2021 10:24 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/5/21 4:27 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Ilya, I think about your suggestion recently. But I'm still not very clear about the design. Please see my reply below: On 3/1/2021 8:48 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Simon, Ilya, Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? It has been posted in the community for a long time In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can get to your patches faster. OK, I see. For the series and comments from Eelco: I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? I'm not sure if you are aware of that the psample netlink is different from the ovs netlink. Without offload, kernel sends missed packet and sFlow packet to userspace using the same netlink 'ovs_packet_family'. So they can use the same handler thread. But in order to offload sFlow action, we use psample kernel module to send sampled packets from kernel to userspace. The format for ovs netlink message and psample netlink messages are different. Hi. Sorry for late reply. Yes, I understand that message format is different, but it doesn't really matter. All the message-specific handling and parsing should happen inside the netdev_offload_tc_recv(). This function should have a prototype similar to dpif_netlink_recv(), i.e. it should receive a pointer to the struct dpif_upcall from the caller and fill it with data. Maybe other type of a generic data structure if it's really not possible to construct struct dpif_upcall. From the architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications and might cause lots of issues in the future. I'd say that design should look like this: handler thread -> dpif_recv() -> dpif_netlink_recv() -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() In order to use the handler thread, I'm not sure if we should add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. If we should do that, we should consider how to differentiate if the event comes from ovs or psample netlink. Maybe we should allocate a special port number for psample and assign it to event.data.u32. Anyway, that's the details. If this is the right direction, I'll think about it. Last three calls should be implemented. The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from above call chain and make it: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() If we throw away dpif part, maybe we have to write some duplicate epoll code for psample only. And we can't block in nl_sock_recv(). Maybe we have to add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. So we have to change the dpif somehow. There is no need to implement any epoll_fd logic for psample. You may only use handler with handler_id == 0. Only this handler will receive psample upcalls. netdev_offload_recv_wait() should be implemented similar to how dpif_netlink_recv_wait() implemented for windows case, i.e. it will call nl_sock_wait(nl_sock, POLLIN) for the psample netlink socket. There is no need to block and you're never blocking anywhere because your're calling nl_sock_recv(..., wait = false) which will use MSG_DONTWAIT while actually receiving a message. Hi Ilya, With this new design, the code will be changed greatly. I'm not unwilling to change it. The effort is not small. So before I start, I want to make sure that it is feasible. Yes, we won't block in nl_sock_recv(), but the handler thread will be blocked in poll_block(). If any of the vport netlink socket is readable , it will be waken up by kernel. If we don't use epoll_ctl to add the psample netlink socket to the handler's epoll fd, we can't receive the psample packet as soon as possible. That means we can only receive the sampled packet when there is a miss upcall. I added some debug message in ovs epoll code and got above conclusion. But I'm not the expert of the epoll API, so I'm not sure if I missed anything. Handler thread wakes up on POLLIN on epoll_fd itself, not on the event on one of the file descriptors added to epoll. epoll_fd is added to a thread's poll loop by poll_fd_wait(handler->epoll_fd, POLLIN); If you will call nl_sock_wait() on psample socket, this socket will be added to the same poll loop with:
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 24 Mar 2021, at 14:03, Chris Mi wrote: On 3/24/2021 8:14 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/24/21 10:17 AM, Chris Mi wrote: On 3/23/2021 10:24 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/5/21 4:27 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Ilya, I think about your suggestion recently. But I'm still not very clear about the design. Please see my reply below: On 3/1/2021 8:48 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Simon, Ilya, Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? It has been posted in the community for a long time In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can get to your patches faster. OK, I see. For the series and comments from Eelco: I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? I'm not sure if you are aware of that the psample netlink is different from the ovs netlink. Without offload, kernel sends missed packet and sFlow packet to userspace using the same netlink 'ovs_packet_family'. So they can use the same handler thread. But in order to offload sFlow action, we use psample kernel module to send sampled packets from kernel to userspace. The format for ovs netlink message and psample netlink messages are different. Hi. Sorry for late reply. Yes, I understand that message format is different, but it doesn't really matter. All the message-specific handling and parsing should happen inside the netdev_offload_tc_recv(). This function should have a prototype similar to dpif_netlink_recv(), i.e. it should receive a pointer to the struct dpif_upcall from the caller and fill it with data. Maybe other type of a generic data structure if it's really not possible to construct struct dpif_upcall. From the architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications and might cause lots of issues in the future. I'd say that design should look like this: handler thread -> dpif_recv() -> dpif_netlink_recv() -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() In order to use the handler thread, I'm not sure if we should add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. If we should do that, we should consider how to differentiate if the event comes from ovs or psample netlink. Maybe we should allocate a special port number for psample and assign it to event.data.u32. Anyway, that's the details. If this is the right direction, I'll think about it. Last three calls should be implemented. The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from above call chain and make it: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() If we throw away dpif part, maybe we have to write some duplicate epoll code for psample only. And we can't block in nl_sock_recv(). Maybe we have to add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. So we have to change the dpif somehow. There is no need to implement any epoll_fd logic for psample. You may only use handler with handler_id == 0. Only this handler will receive psample upcalls. netdev_offload_recv_wait() should be implemented similar to how dpif_netlink_recv_wait() implemented for windows case, i.e. it will call nl_sock_wait(nl_sock, POLLIN) for the psample netlink socket. There is no need to block and you're never blocking anywhere because your're calling nl_sock_recv(..., wait = false) which will use MSG_DONTWAIT while actually receiving a message. Hi Ilya, With this new design, the code will be changed greatly. I'm not unwilling to change it. The effort is not small. So before I start, I want to make sure that it is feasible. Yes, we won't block in nl_sock_recv(), but the handler thread will be blocked in poll_block(). If any of the vport netlink socket is readable , it will be waken up by kernel. If we don't use epoll_ctl to add the psample netlink socket to the handler's epoll fd, we can't receive the psample packet as soon as possible. That means we can only receive the sampled packet when there is a miss upcall. I added some debug message in ovs epoll code and got above conclusion. But I'm not the expert of the epoll API, so I'm not sure if I missed anything. Handler thread wakes up on POLLIN on epoll_fd itself, not on the event on one of the file descriptors added to epoll. epoll_fd is added to a thread's poll loop by poll_fd_wait(handler->epoll_fd, POLLIN); If you will call nl_sock_wait() on
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 3/24/2021 8:14 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/24/21 10:17 AM, Chris Mi wrote: On 3/23/2021 10:24 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/5/21 4:27 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Ilya, I think about your suggestion recently. But I'm still not very clear about the design. Please see my reply below: On 3/1/2021 8:48 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Simon, Ilya, Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? It has been posted in the community for a long time In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can get to your patches faster. OK, I see. For the series and comments from Eelco: I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? I'm not sure if you are aware of that the psample netlink is different from the ovs netlink. Without offload, kernel sends missed packet and sFlow packet to userspace using the same netlink 'ovs_packet_family'. So they can use the same handler thread. But in order to offload sFlow action, we use psample kernel module to send sampled packets from kernel to userspace. The format for ovs netlink message and psample netlink messages are different. Hi. Sorry for late reply. Yes, I understand that message format is different, but it doesn't really matter. All the message-specific handling and parsing should happen inside the netdev_offload_tc_recv(). This function should have a prototype similar to dpif_netlink_recv(), i.e. it should receive a pointer to the struct dpif_upcall from the caller and fill it with data. Maybe other type of a generic data structure if it's really not possible to construct struct dpif_upcall. From the architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications and might cause lots of issues in the future. I'd say that design should look like this: handler thread -> dpif_recv() -> dpif_netlink_recv() -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() In order to use the handler thread, I'm not sure if we should add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. If we should do that, we should consider how to differentiate if the event comes from ovs or psample netlink. Maybe we should allocate a special port number for psample and assign it to event.data.u32. Anyway, that's the details. If this is the right direction, I'll think about it. Last three calls should be implemented. The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from above call chain and make it: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() If we throw away dpif part, maybe we have to write some duplicate epoll code for psample only. And we can't block in nl_sock_recv(). Maybe we have to add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. So we have to change the dpif somehow. There is no need to implement any epoll_fd logic for psample. You may only use handler with handler_id == 0. Only this handler will receive psample upcalls. netdev_offload_recv_wait() should be implemented similar to how dpif_netlink_recv_wait() implemented for windows case, i.e. it will call nl_sock_wait(nl_sock, POLLIN) for the psample netlink socket. There is no need to block and you're never blocking anywhere because your're calling nl_sock_recv(..., wait = false) which will use MSG_DONTWAIT while actually receiving a message. Hi Ilya, With this new design, the code will be changed greatly. I'm not unwilling to change it. The effort is not small. So before I start, I want to make sure that it is feasible. Yes, we won't block in nl_sock_recv(), but the handler thread will be blocked in poll_block(). If any of the vport netlink socket is readable , it will be waken up by kernel. If we don't use epoll_ctl to add the psample netlink socket to the handler's epoll fd, we can't receive the psample packet as soon as possible. That means we can only receive the sampled packet when there is a miss upcall. I added some debug message in ovs epoll code and got above conclusion. But I'm not the expert of the epoll API, so I'm not sure if I missed anything. Handler thread wakes up on POLLIN on epoll_fd itself, not on the event on one of the file descriptors added to epoll. epoll_fd is added to a thread's poll loop by poll_fd_wait(handler->epoll_fd, POLLIN); If you will call nl_sock_wait() on psample socket, this socket will be added to the same poll loop with:
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 3/24/21 10:17 AM, Chris Mi wrote: > On 3/23/2021 10:24 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 3/5/21 4:27 AM, Chris Mi wrote: >>> Hi Ilya, >>> >>> I think about your suggestion recently. But I'm still not very clear about >>> the design. >>> Please see my reply below: >>> >>> On 3/1/2021 8:48 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: > Hi Simon, Ilya, > > Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? > It has been posted in the community for a long time In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can get to your patches faster. >>> OK, I see. For the series and comments from Eelco: I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? >>> I'm not sure if you are aware of that the psample netlink is different from >>> the ovs >>> netlink. Without offload, kernel sends missed packet and sFlow packet to >>> userspace >>> using the same netlink 'ovs_packet_family'. So they can use the same >>> handler thread. >>> But in order to offload sFlow action, we use psample kernel module to send >>> sampled >>> packets from kernel to userspace. The format for ovs netlink message and >>> psample >>> netlink messages are different. >> Hi. Sorry for late reply. >> >> Yes, I understand that message format is different, but it doesn't really >> matter. All the message-specific handling and parsing should happen >> inside the netdev_offload_tc_recv(). This function should have a prototype >> similar to dpif_netlink_recv(), i.e. it should receive a pointer to the >> struct dpif_upcall from the caller and fill it with data. Maybe other >> type of a generic data structure if it's really not possible to construct >> struct dpif_upcall. >> >> From the architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications and might cause lots of issues in the future. I'd say that design should look like this: handler thread -> dpif_recv() -> dpif_netlink_recv() -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() >>> In order to use the handler thread, I'm not sure if we should add psample >>> socket >>> fd to every handler's epoll_fd. If we should do that, we should consider >>> how to >>> differentiate if the event comes from ovs or psample netlink. Maybe we >>> should >>> allocate a special port number for psample and assign it to event.data.u32. >>> Anyway, that's the details. If this is the right direction, I'll think >>> about it. Last three calls should be implemented. The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from above call chain and make it: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() >>> If we throw away dpif part, maybe we have to write some duplicate epoll code >>> for psample only. And we can't block in nl_sock_recv(). Maybe we have to add >>> psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. So we have to change the dpif >>> somehow. >> There is no need to implement any epoll_fd logic for psample. >> You may only use handler with handler_id == 0. Only this handler will >> receive >> psample upcalls. netdev_offload_recv_wait() should be implemented similar >> to how dpif_netlink_recv_wait() implemented for windows case, i.e. it will >> call nl_sock_wait(nl_sock, POLLIN) for the psample netlink socket. >> There is no need to block and you're never blocking anywhere because your're >> calling nl_sock_recv(..., wait = false) which will use MSG_DONTWAIT while >> actually receiving a message. > Hi Ilya, > > With this new design, the code will be changed greatly. I'm not unwilling to > change it. > The effort is not small. So before I start, I want to make sure that it is > feasible. > > Yes, we won't block in nl_sock_recv(), but the handler thread will be blocked > in poll_block(). > If any of the vport netlink socket is readable , it will be waken up by > kernel. If we don't use > epoll_ctl to add the psample netlink socket to the handler's epoll fd, we > can't receive the > psample packet as soon as possible. That means we can only receive the > sampled packet > when there is a miss upcall. > > I added some debug message in ovs epoll code and got above conclusion. But > I'm not > the expert of the epoll API, so I'm not sure if I
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 3/23/2021 10:24 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/5/21 4:27 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Ilya, I think about your suggestion recently. But I'm still not very clear about the design. Please see my reply below: On 3/1/2021 8:48 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Simon, Ilya, Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? It has been posted in the community for a long time In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can get to your patches faster. OK, I see. For the series and comments from Eelco: I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? I'm not sure if you are aware of that the psample netlink is different from the ovs netlink. Without offload, kernel sends missed packet and sFlow packet to userspace using the same netlink 'ovs_packet_family'. So they can use the same handler thread. But in order to offload sFlow action, we use psample kernel module to send sampled packets from kernel to userspace. The format for ovs netlink message and psample netlink messages are different. Hi. Sorry for late reply. Yes, I understand that message format is different, but it doesn't really matter. All the message-specific handling and parsing should happen inside the netdev_offload_tc_recv(). This function should have a prototype similar to dpif_netlink_recv(), i.e. it should receive a pointer to the struct dpif_upcall from the caller and fill it with data. Maybe other type of a generic data structure if it's really not possible to construct struct dpif_upcall. From the architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications and might cause lots of issues in the future. I'd say that design should look like this: handler thread -> dpif_recv() -> dpif_netlink_recv() -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() In order to use the handler thread, I'm not sure if we should add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. If we should do that, we should consider how to differentiate if the event comes from ovs or psample netlink. Maybe we should allocate a special port number for psample and assign it to event.data.u32. Anyway, that's the details. If this is the right direction, I'll think about it. Last three calls should be implemented. The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from above call chain and make it: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() If we throw away dpif part, maybe we have to write some duplicate epoll code for psample only. And we can't block in nl_sock_recv(). Maybe we have to add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. So we have to change the dpif somehow. There is no need to implement any epoll_fd logic for psample. You may only use handler with handler_id == 0. Only this handler will receive psample upcalls. netdev_offload_recv_wait() should be implemented similar to how dpif_netlink_recv_wait() implemented for windows case, i.e. it will call nl_sock_wait(nl_sock, POLLIN) for the psample netlink socket. There is no need to block and you're never blocking anywhere because your're calling nl_sock_recv(..., wait = false) which will use MSG_DONTWAIT while actually receiving a message. Hi Ilya, With this new design, the code will be changed greatly. I'm not unwilling to change it. The effort is not small. So before I start, I want to make sure that it is feasible. Yes, we won't block in nl_sock_recv(), but the handler thread will be blocked in poll_block(). If any of the vport netlink socket is readable , it will be waken up by kernel. If we don't use epoll_ctl to add the psample netlink socket to the handler's epoll fd, we can't receive the psample packet as soon as possible. That means we can only receive the sampled packet when there is a miss upcall. I added some debug message in ovs epoll code and got above conclusion. But I'm not the expert of the epoll API, so I'm not sure if I missed anything. Thanks, Chris So, there should be several call chains: 1. Init. open_dpif_backer/type_run() -> netdev_offload_recv_set() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv_set(enabled) -> if (enable) psample_sock = nl_sock_create(...); else close(psample_sock); 2. Wait. udpif_upcall_handler() -> netdev_offload_recv_wait() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv_wait() ->
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 3/5/21 4:27 AM, Chris Mi wrote: > Hi Ilya, > > I think about your suggestion recently. But I'm still not very clear about > the design. > Please see my reply below: > > On 3/1/2021 8:48 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: >>> Hi Simon, Ilya, >>> >>> Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? >>> It has been posted in the community for a long time >> In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other >> patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog >> (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) >> and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other >> patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can >> get to your patches faster. > OK, I see. >> >> For the series and comments from Eelco: >> I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still >> do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. >> Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? > I'm not sure if you are aware of that the psample netlink is different from > the ovs > netlink. Without offload, kernel sends missed packet and sFlow packet to > userspace > using the same netlink 'ovs_packet_family'. So they can use the same handler > thread. > But in order to offload sFlow action, we use psample kernel module to send > sampled > packets from kernel to userspace. The format for ovs netlink message and > psample > netlink messages are different. Hi. Sorry for late reply. Yes, I understand that message format is different, but it doesn't really matter. All the message-specific handling and parsing should happen inside the netdev_offload_tc_recv(). This function should have a prototype similar to dpif_netlink_recv(), i.e. it should receive a pointer to the struct dpif_upcall from the caller and fill it with data. Maybe other type of a generic data structure if it's really not possible to construct struct dpif_upcall. >> From the >> architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code >> from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications >> and might cause lots of issues in the future. >> >> I'd say that design should look like this: >> >> handler thread -> >> dpif_recv() -> >> dpif_netlink_recv() -> >> netdev_offload_recv() -> >> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> >> nl_sock_recv() > In order to use the handler thread, I'm not sure if we should add psample > socket > fd to every handler's epoll_fd. If we should do that, we should consider how > to > differentiate if the event comes from ovs or psample netlink. Maybe we should > allocate a special port number for psample and assign it to event.data.u32. > Anyway, that's the details. If this is the right direction, I'll think about > it. >> >> Last three calls should be implemented. >> >> The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from >> above call chain and make it: >> >> handler thread -> >> netdev_offload_recv() -> >> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> >> nl_sock_recv() > If we throw away dpif part, maybe we have to write some duplicate epoll code > for psample only. And we can't block in nl_sock_recv(). Maybe we have to add > psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. So we have to change the dpif > somehow. There is no need to implement any epoll_fd logic for psample. You may only use handler with handler_id == 0. Only this handler will receive psample upcalls. netdev_offload_recv_wait() should be implemented similar to how dpif_netlink_recv_wait() implemented for windows case, i.e. it will call nl_sock_wait(nl_sock, POLLIN) for the psample netlink socket. There is no need to block and you're never blocking anywhere because your're calling nl_sock_recv(..., wait = false) which will use MSG_DONTWAIT while actually receiving a message. So, there should be several call chains: 1. Init. open_dpif_backer/type_run() -> netdev_offload_recv_set() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv_set(enabled) -> if (enable) psample_sock = nl_sock_create(...); else close(psample_sock); 2. Wait. udpif_upcall_handler() -> netdev_offload_recv_wait() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv_wait() -> if (handler_id == 0) nl_sock_wait(psample_sock, POLLIN); 3. Receive. udpif_upcall_handler() -> recv_upcalls() -> netdev_offload_recv() -> | netdev_offload_tc_recv(..., struct dpif_upcall *upcall) -> | if (handler_id == 0) | nl_sock_recv(psample_socket, ..., wait = false); | *upcall = ; upcall_receive() process_upcall() -> dpif_sflow_received() 4. Deinit. close_dpif_backer() -> netdev_offload_recv_set(enable = false); Does that look more clear? > > I don't know if I understand your suggestion correctly. Or I missed anything > So if you have
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
Hi Ilya, I think about your suggestion recently. But I'm still not very clear about the design. Please see my reply below: On 3/1/2021 8:48 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Simon, Ilya, Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? It has been posted in the community for a long time In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can get to your patches faster. OK, I see. For the series and comments from Eelco: I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? I'm not sure if you are aware of that the psample netlink is different from the ovs netlink. Without offload, kernel sends missed packet and sFlow packet to userspace using the same netlink 'ovs_packet_family'. So they can use the same handler thread. But in order to offload sFlow action, we use psample kernel module to send sampled packets from kernel to userspace. The format for ovs netlink message and psample netlink messages are different. From the architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications and might cause lots of issues in the future. I'd say that design should look like this: handler thread -> dpif_recv() -> dpif_netlink_recv() -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() In order to use the handler thread, I'm not sure if we should add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. If we should do that, we should consider how to differentiate if the event comes from ovs or psample netlink. Maybe we should allocate a special port number for psample and assign it to event.data.u32. Anyway, that's the details. If this is the right direction, I'll think about it. Last three calls should be implemented. The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from above call chain and make it: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() If we throw away dpif part, maybe we have to write some duplicate epoll code for psample only. And we can't block in nl_sock_recv(). Maybe we have to add psample socket fd to every handler's epoll_fd. So we have to change the dpif somehow. I don't know if I understand your suggestion correctly. Or I missed anything So if you have time, could you please elaborate? Thanks, Chris This way we could avoid touching dpif-netdev and still have psample offloading for the case where netdev-offload-tc is used from the userspace datapath. Above architecture also implies implementation of: - netdev_offload_recv_wait() - netdev_offload_recv_purge() - and the netdev_offload_tc_* counterparts. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. Thanks, Chris On 2/23/2021 5:08 PM, Roi Dayan wrote: On 2021-01-27 8:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: This patch set adds offload support for sFlow. Psample is a genetlink channel for packet sampling. TC action act_sample uses psample to send sampled packets to userspace. When offloading sample action to TC, userspace creates a unique ID to map sFlow action and tunnel info and passes this ID to kernel instead of the sFlow info. psample will send this ID and sampled packet to userspace. Using the ID, userspace can recover the sFlow info and send sampled packet to the right sFlow monitoring host. v2-v1: - Fix robot errors. v3-v2: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Add patch #9 to fix older kernels build issue. - Add travis test result. v4-v3: - Fix offload issue when sampling rate is 1. v5-v4: - Move polling thread from ofproto to netdev-offload-tc. v6-v5: - Rebase. - Add GitHub Actions test result. v7-v6: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Fix "ERROR: Inappropriate spacing around cast" v8-v7 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comment for patch #11. v9-v8 - Remove sflow_len from struct dpif_sflow_attr. - Log a debug message for other userspace actions. v10-v9 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comments on v9. v11-v10 - Fix a bracing error. v12-v11 - Add duplicate sample group id check. Chris Mi (11): compat: Add psample and tc sample action defines for older kernels ovs-kmod-ctl: Load kernel module psample dpif: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API ofproto: Add upcall callback to process sFlow packet netdev-offload: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API dpif-netlink: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Introduce group ID management API
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 3/1/2021 8:48 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: Hi Simon, Ilya, Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? It has been posted in the community for a long time In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can get to your patches faster. For the series and comments from Eelco: I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? From the architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications and might cause lots of issues in the future. I'd say that design should look like this: handler thread -> dpif_recv() -> dpif_netlink_recv() -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() Last three calls should be implemented. The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from above call chain and make it: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() This way we could avoid touching dpif-netdev and still have psample offloading for the case where netdev-offload-tc is used from the userspace datapath. Above architecture also implies implementation of: - netdev_offload_recv_wait() - netdev_offload_recv_purge() - and the netdev_offload_tc_* counterparts. Thanks for your above suggestion, Ilya. I'll check what need to be improved. Regards, Chris Best regards, Ilya Maximets. Thanks, Chris On 2/23/2021 5:08 PM, Roi Dayan wrote: On 2021-01-27 8:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: This patch set adds offload support for sFlow. Psample is a genetlink channel for packet sampling. TC action act_sample uses psample to send sampled packets to userspace. When offloading sample action to TC, userspace creates a unique ID to map sFlow action and tunnel info and passes this ID to kernel instead of the sFlow info. psample will send this ID and sampled packet to userspace. Using the ID, userspace can recover the sFlow info and send sampled packet to the right sFlow monitoring host. v2-v1: - Fix robot errors. v3-v2: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Add patch #9 to fix older kernels build issue. - Add travis test result. v4-v3: - Fix offload issue when sampling rate is 1. v5-v4: - Move polling thread from ofproto to netdev-offload-tc. v6-v5: - Rebase. - Add GitHub Actions test result. v7-v6: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Fix "ERROR: Inappropriate spacing around cast" v8-v7 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comment for patch #11. v9-v8 - Remove sflow_len from struct dpif_sflow_attr. - Log a debug message for other userspace actions. v10-v9 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comments on v9. v11-v10 - Fix a bracing error. v12-v11 - Add duplicate sample group id check. Chris Mi (11): compat: Add psample and tc sample action defines for older kernels ovs-kmod-ctl: Load kernel module psample dpif: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API ofproto: Add upcall callback to process sFlow packet netdev-offload: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API dpif-netlink: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Introduce group ID management API netdev-offload-tc: Create psample netlink socket netdev-offload-tc: Add psample receive handler netdev-offload-tc: Add offload support for sFlow include/linux/automake.mk | 4 +- include/linux/psample.h | 58 +++ include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h | 25 ++ lib/dpif-netdev.c | 1 + lib/dpif-netlink.c | 27 ++ lib/dpif-netlink.h | 4 + lib/dpif-provider.h | 10 + lib/dpif.c | 8 + lib/dpif.h | 23 ++ lib/netdev-offload-provider.h | 3 + lib/netdev-offload-tc.c | 659 ++- lib/netdev-offload.c | 30 ++ lib/netdev-offload.h | 4 + lib/tc.c | 61 ++- lib/tc.h | 16 +- ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c | 42 ++ utilities/ovs-kmod-ctl.in | 14 + 17 files changed, 973 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/psample.h create mode 100644 include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h Hi Simon, Ilya, Can you help review for this series? do you have any comments you want us to handle? Thanks, Roi ___ dev mailing list
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 3/1/21 9:30 AM, Chris Mi wrote: > Hi Simon, Ilya, > > Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? > It has been posted in the community for a long time In general, the way to get your patches reviewed is to review other patches. It's simply because we still have a huge review backlog (214 patches right now in patchwork and most of them needs review) and bugfixes usually has a bit higher priority. By reviewing other patches you're reducing amount of work for maintainers so they can get to your patches faster. For the series and comments from Eelco: I didn't read the patches carefully, only a quick glance, but I still do not understand why we need a separate thread to poll psample events. Why can't we just allow usual handler threads to do that? From the architecture perspective it's not a good thing to call ofproto code from the offload-provider. This introduces lots of complications and might cause lots of issues in the future. I'd say that design should look like this: handler thread -> dpif_recv() -> dpif_netlink_recv() -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() Last three calls should be implemented. The better version of this will be to throw away dpif part from above call chain and make it: handler thread -> netdev_offload_recv() -> netdev_offload_tc_recv() -> nl_sock_recv() This way we could avoid touching dpif-netdev and still have psample offloading for the case where netdev-offload-tc is used from the userspace datapath. Above architecture also implies implementation of: - netdev_offload_recv_wait() - netdev_offload_recv_purge() - and the netdev_offload_tc_* counterparts. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > > Thanks, > Chris > > On 2/23/2021 5:08 PM, Roi Dayan wrote: >> >> >> On 2021-01-27 8:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: >>> This patch set adds offload support for sFlow. >>> >>> Psample is a genetlink channel for packet sampling. TC action act_sample >>> uses psample to send sampled packets to userspace. >>> >>> When offloading sample action to TC, userspace creates a unique ID to >>> map sFlow action and tunnel info and passes this ID to kernel instead >>> of the sFlow info. psample will send this ID and sampled packet to >>> userspace. Using the ID, userspace can recover the sFlow info and send >>> sampled packet to the right sFlow monitoring host. >>> >>> v2-v1: >>> - Fix robot errors. >>> v3-v2: >>> - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. >>> - Add patch #9 to fix older kernels build issue. >>> - Add travis test result. >>> v4-v3: >>> - Fix offload issue when sampling rate is 1. >>> v5-v4: >>> - Move polling thread from ofproto to netdev-offload-tc. >>> v6-v5: >>> - Rebase. >>> - Add GitHub Actions test result. >>> v7-v6: >>> - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. >>> - Fix "ERROR: Inappropriate spacing around cast" >>> v8-v7 >>> - Address Eelco Chaudron's comment for patch #11. >>> v9-v8 >>> - Remove sflow_len from struct dpif_sflow_attr. >>> - Log a debug message for other userspace actions. >>> v10-v9 >>> - Address Eelco Chaudron's comments on v9. >>> v11-v10 >>> - Fix a bracing error. >>> v12-v11 >>> - Add duplicate sample group id check. >>> >>> Chris Mi (11): >>> compat: Add psample and tc sample action defines for older kernels >>> ovs-kmod-ctl: Load kernel module psample >>> dpif: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API >>> ofproto: Add upcall callback to process sFlow packet >>> netdev-offload: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API >>> netdev-offload-tc: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API >>> dpif-netlink: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API >>> netdev-offload-tc: Introduce group ID management API >>> netdev-offload-tc: Create psample netlink socket >>> netdev-offload-tc: Add psample receive handler >>> netdev-offload-tc: Add offload support for sFlow >>> >>> include/linux/automake.mk | 4 +- >>> include/linux/psample.h | 58 +++ >>> include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h | 25 ++ >>> lib/dpif-netdev.c | 1 + >>> lib/dpif-netlink.c | 27 ++ >>> lib/dpif-netlink.h | 4 + >>> lib/dpif-provider.h | 10 + >>> lib/dpif.c | 8 + >>> lib/dpif.h | 23 ++ >>> lib/netdev-offload-provider.h | 3 + >>> lib/netdev-offload-tc.c | 659 ++- >>> lib/netdev-offload.c | 30 ++ >>> lib/netdev-offload.h | 4 + >>> lib/tc.c | 61 ++- >>> lib/tc.h | 16 +- >>> ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c | 42 ++ >>> utilities/ovs-kmod-ctl.in | 14 + >>> 17 files changed, 973 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 include/linux/psample.h >>> create mode 100644 include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h >>> >> >> >> Hi Simon, Ilya, >> >> Can you help review for this series? >> do
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
Hi Simon, Ilya, Could I know what should we do to make progress for this patch set? It has been posted in the community for a long time Thanks, Chris On 2/23/2021 5:08 PM, Roi Dayan wrote: On 2021-01-27 8:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: This patch set adds offload support for sFlow. Psample is a genetlink channel for packet sampling. TC action act_sample uses psample to send sampled packets to userspace. When offloading sample action to TC, userspace creates a unique ID to map sFlow action and tunnel info and passes this ID to kernel instead of the sFlow info. psample will send this ID and sampled packet to userspace. Using the ID, userspace can recover the sFlow info and send sampled packet to the right sFlow monitoring host. v2-v1: - Fix robot errors. v3-v2: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Add patch #9 to fix older kernels build issue. - Add travis test result. v4-v3: - Fix offload issue when sampling rate is 1. v5-v4: - Move polling thread from ofproto to netdev-offload-tc. v6-v5: - Rebase. - Add GitHub Actions test result. v7-v6: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Fix "ERROR: Inappropriate spacing around cast" v8-v7 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comment for patch #11. v9-v8 - Remove sflow_len from struct dpif_sflow_attr. - Log a debug message for other userspace actions. v10-v9 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comments on v9. v11-v10 - Fix a bracing error. v12-v11 - Add duplicate sample group id check. Chris Mi (11): compat: Add psample and tc sample action defines for older kernels ovs-kmod-ctl: Load kernel module psample dpif: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API ofproto: Add upcall callback to process sFlow packet netdev-offload: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API dpif-netlink: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Introduce group ID management API netdev-offload-tc: Create psample netlink socket netdev-offload-tc: Add psample receive handler netdev-offload-tc: Add offload support for sFlow include/linux/automake.mk | 4 +- include/linux/psample.h | 58 +++ include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h | 25 ++ lib/dpif-netdev.c | 1 + lib/dpif-netlink.c | 27 ++ lib/dpif-netlink.h | 4 + lib/dpif-provider.h | 10 + lib/dpif.c | 8 + lib/dpif.h | 23 ++ lib/netdev-offload-provider.h | 3 + lib/netdev-offload-tc.c | 659 ++- lib/netdev-offload.c | 30 ++ lib/netdev-offload.h | 4 + lib/tc.c | 61 ++- lib/tc.h | 16 +- ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c | 42 ++ utilities/ovs-kmod-ctl.in | 14 + 17 files changed, 973 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/psample.h create mode 100644 include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h Hi Simon, Ilya, Can you help review for this series? do you have any comments you want us to handle? Thanks, Roi ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 23 Feb 2021, at 12:11, Eelco Chaudron wrote: On 23 Feb 2021, at 10:08, Roi Dayan wrote: On 2021-01-27 8:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: This patch set adds offload support for sFlow. Psample is a genetlink channel for packet sampling. TC action act_sample uses psample to send sampled packets to userspace. When offloading sample action to TC, userspace creates a unique ID to map sFlow action and tunnel info and passes this ID to kernel instead of the sFlow info. psample will send this ID and sampled packet to userspace. Using the ID, userspace can recover the sFlow info and send sampled packet to the right sFlow monitoring host. v2-v1: - Fix robot errors. v3-v2: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Add patch #9 to fix older kernels build issue. - Add travis test result. v4-v3: - Fix offload issue when sampling rate is 1. v5-v4: - Move polling thread from ofproto to netdev-offload-tc. v6-v5: - Rebase. - Add GitHub Actions test result. v7-v6: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Fix "ERROR: Inappropriate spacing around cast" v8-v7 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comment for patch #11. v9-v8 - Remove sflow_len from struct dpif_sflow_attr. - Log a debug message for other userspace actions. v10-v9 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comments on v9. v11-v10 - Fix a bracing error. v12-v11 - Add duplicate sample group id check. Chris Mi (11): compat: Add psample and tc sample action defines for older kernels ovs-kmod-ctl: Load kernel module psample dpif: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API ofproto: Add upcall callback to process sFlow packet netdev-offload: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API dpif-netlink: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Introduce group ID management API netdev-offload-tc: Create psample netlink socket netdev-offload-tc: Add psample receive handler netdev-offload-tc: Add offload support for sFlow include/linux/automake.mk| 4 +- include/linux/psample.h | 58 +++ include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h | 25 ++ lib/dpif-netdev.c| 1 + lib/dpif-netlink.c | 27 ++ lib/dpif-netlink.h | 4 + lib/dpif-provider.h | 10 + lib/dpif.c | 8 + lib/dpif.h | 23 ++ lib/netdev-offload-provider.h| 3 + lib/netdev-offload-tc.c | 659 ++- lib/netdev-offload.c | 30 ++ lib/netdev-offload.h | 4 + lib/tc.c | 61 ++- lib/tc.h | 16 +- ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c| 42 ++ utilities/ovs-kmod-ctl.in| 14 + 17 files changed, 973 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/psample.h create mode 100644 include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h Hi Simon, Ilya, Can you help review for this series? do you have any comments you want us to handle? See my comments on v11. We need some more inputs on those so I could review v12, or we need a v13. Oops, my comments on the v9 patches, to be exact: [PATCH v9 08/11] netdev-offload-tc: Introduce group ID management API [PATCH v9 10/11] netdev-offload-tc: Add psample receive handler ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 23 Feb 2021, at 10:08, Roi Dayan wrote: On 2021-01-27 8:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: This patch set adds offload support for sFlow. Psample is a genetlink channel for packet sampling. TC action act_sample uses psample to send sampled packets to userspace. When offloading sample action to TC, userspace creates a unique ID to map sFlow action and tunnel info and passes this ID to kernel instead of the sFlow info. psample will send this ID and sampled packet to userspace. Using the ID, userspace can recover the sFlow info and send sampled packet to the right sFlow monitoring host. v2-v1: - Fix robot errors. v3-v2: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Add patch #9 to fix older kernels build issue. - Add travis test result. v4-v3: - Fix offload issue when sampling rate is 1. v5-v4: - Move polling thread from ofproto to netdev-offload-tc. v6-v5: - Rebase. - Add GitHub Actions test result. v7-v6: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Fix "ERROR: Inappropriate spacing around cast" v8-v7 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comment for patch #11. v9-v8 - Remove sflow_len from struct dpif_sflow_attr. - Log a debug message for other userspace actions. v10-v9 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comments on v9. v11-v10 - Fix a bracing error. v12-v11 - Add duplicate sample group id check. Chris Mi (11): compat: Add psample and tc sample action defines for older kernels ovs-kmod-ctl: Load kernel module psample dpif: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API ofproto: Add upcall callback to process sFlow packet netdev-offload: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API dpif-netlink: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Introduce group ID management API netdev-offload-tc: Create psample netlink socket netdev-offload-tc: Add psample receive handler netdev-offload-tc: Add offload support for sFlow include/linux/automake.mk| 4 +- include/linux/psample.h | 58 +++ include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h | 25 ++ lib/dpif-netdev.c| 1 + lib/dpif-netlink.c | 27 ++ lib/dpif-netlink.h | 4 + lib/dpif-provider.h | 10 + lib/dpif.c | 8 + lib/dpif.h | 23 ++ lib/netdev-offload-provider.h| 3 + lib/netdev-offload-tc.c | 659 ++- lib/netdev-offload.c | 30 ++ lib/netdev-offload.h | 4 + lib/tc.c | 61 ++- lib/tc.h | 16 +- ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c| 42 ++ utilities/ovs-kmod-ctl.in| 14 + 17 files changed, 973 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/psample.h create mode 100644 include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h Hi Simon, Ilya, Can you help review for this series? do you have any comments you want us to handle? See my comments on v11. We need some more inputs on those so I could review v12, or we need a v13. //Eelco ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v12 00/11] Add offload support for sFlow
On 2021-01-27 8:23 AM, Chris Mi wrote: This patch set adds offload support for sFlow. Psample is a genetlink channel for packet sampling. TC action act_sample uses psample to send sampled packets to userspace. When offloading sample action to TC, userspace creates a unique ID to map sFlow action and tunnel info and passes this ID to kernel instead of the sFlow info. psample will send this ID and sampled packet to userspace. Using the ID, userspace can recover the sFlow info and send sampled packet to the right sFlow monitoring host. v2-v1: - Fix robot errors. v3-v2: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Add patch #9 to fix older kernels build issue. - Add travis test result. v4-v3: - Fix offload issue when sampling rate is 1. v5-v4: - Move polling thread from ofproto to netdev-offload-tc. v6-v5: - Rebase. - Add GitHub Actions test result. v7-v6: - Remove Gerrit Change-Id. - Fix "ERROR: Inappropriate spacing around cast" v8-v7 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comment for patch #11. v9-v8 - Remove sflow_len from struct dpif_sflow_attr. - Log a debug message for other userspace actions. v10-v9 - Address Eelco Chaudron's comments on v9. v11-v10 - Fix a bracing error. v12-v11 - Add duplicate sample group id check. Chris Mi (11): compat: Add psample and tc sample action defines for older kernels ovs-kmod-ctl: Load kernel module psample dpif: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API ofproto: Add upcall callback to process sFlow packet netdev-offload: Introduce register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API dpif-netlink: Implement register sFlow upcall callback API netdev-offload-tc: Introduce group ID management API netdev-offload-tc: Create psample netlink socket netdev-offload-tc: Add psample receive handler netdev-offload-tc: Add offload support for sFlow include/linux/automake.mk| 4 +- include/linux/psample.h | 58 +++ include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h | 25 ++ lib/dpif-netdev.c| 1 + lib/dpif-netlink.c | 27 ++ lib/dpif-netlink.h | 4 + lib/dpif-provider.h | 10 + lib/dpif.c | 8 + lib/dpif.h | 23 ++ lib/netdev-offload-provider.h| 3 + lib/netdev-offload-tc.c | 659 ++- lib/netdev-offload.c | 30 ++ lib/netdev-offload.h | 4 + lib/tc.c | 61 ++- lib/tc.h | 16 +- ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c| 42 ++ utilities/ovs-kmod-ctl.in| 14 + 17 files changed, 973 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/psample.h create mode 100644 include/linux/tc_act/tc_sample.h Hi Simon, Ilya, Can you help review for this series? do you have any comments you want us to handle? Thanks, Roi ___ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
