Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] xsk: Support UMEM chunk_size > PAGE_SIZE

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 01:12:00PM +0200, Kal Cutter Conley wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
>> > >> In addition, presumably when using this mode, the other XDP actions
>> > >> (XDP_PASS, XDP_REDIRECT to other targets) would stop working unless we
>> > >> add special handling for that in the kernel? We'll definitely need to
>> > >> handle that somehow...
>> > >
>> > > I am not familiar with all the details here. Do you know a reason why
>> > > these cases would stop working / why special handling would be needed?
>> > > For example, if I have a UMEM that uses hugepages and XDP_PASS is
>> > > returned, then the data is just copied into an SKB right? SKBs can
>> > > also be created directly from hugepages AFAIK. So I don't understand
>> > > what the issue would be. Can someone explain this concern?
>> >
>> > Well, I was asking :) It may well be that the SKB path just works; did
>> > you test this? Pretty sure XDP_REDIRECT to another device won't, though?
>
> for XDP_PASS we have to allocate a new buffer and copy the contents from
> current xdp_buff that was backed by xsk_buff_pool and give the current one
> back to pool. I am not sure if __napi_alloc_skb() is always capable of
> handling len > PAGE_SIZE - i believe there might a particular combination
> of settings that allows it, but if not we should have a fallback path that
> would iterate over data and copy this to a certain (linear + frags) parts.
> This implies non-zero effort that is needed for jumbo frames ZC support.
>
> I can certainly test this out and play with it - maybe this just works, I
> didn't check yet. Even if it does, then we need some kind of temporary
> mechanism that will forbid loading ZC jumbo frames due to what Toke
> brought up.

Yeah, this was exactly the kind of thing I was worried about (same for
XDP_REDIRECT). Thanks for fleshing it out a bit :)

>> >
>> 
>> I was also asking :-)
>> 
>> I tested that the SKB path is usable today with this patch.
>> Specifically, sending and receiving large jumbo packets with AF_XDP
>> and that a non-multi-buffer XDP program could access the whole packet.
>> I have not specifically tested XDP_REDIRECT to another device or
>> anything with ZC since that is not possible without driver support.
>> 
>> My feeling is, there wouldn't be non-trivial issues here since this
>> patchset changes nothing except allowing the maximum chunk size to be
>> larger. The driver either supports larger MTUs with XDP enabled or it
>> doesn't. If it doesn't, the frames are dropped anyway. Also, chunk
>> size mismatches between two XSKs (e.g. with XDP_REDIRECT) would be
>> something supported or not supported irrespective of this patchset.
>
> Here is the comparison between multi-buffer and jumbo frames that I did
> for ZC ice driver. Configured MTU was 8192 as this is the frame size for
> aligned mode when working with huge pages. I am presenting plain numbers
> over here from xdpsock.
>
> Mbuf, packet size = 8192 - XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM
> 885,705pps - rxdrop frame_size=4096
> 806,307pps - l2fwd frame_size=4096
> 877,989pps - rxdrop frame_size=2048
> 773,331pps - l2fwd frame_size=2048
>
> Jumbo, packet size = 8192 - XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM
> 893,530pps - rxdrop frame_size=8192
> 841,860pps - l2fwd frame_size=8192
>
> Kal might say that multi-buffer numbers are imaginary as these patches
> were never shown to the public ;) but now that we have extensive test
> suite I am fixing some last issues that stand out, so we are asking for
> some more patience over here... overall i was expecting that they will be
> much worse when compared to jumbo frames, but then again i believe this
> implementation is not ideal and can be improved. Nevertheless, jumbo
> frames support has its value.

Thank you for doing these! Okay, so that's between 1-4% improvement (vs
the 4k frags). I dunno, I wouldn't consider that a slam dunk; would
depend on the additional complexity if it is worth it to do both, IMO...

-Toke