Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: fix flow dissection on Tx path

From: Alexander Lobakin
Date: Fri Dec 06 2019 - 02:37:51 EST


Florian Fainelli wrote 06.12.2019 06:32:
On 12/5/2019 6:58 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
Andrew Lunn wrote 05.12.2019 17:01:
Hi,

> What i'm missing here is an explanation why the flow dissector is
> called here if the protocol is already set? It suggests there is a
> case when the protocol is not correctly set, and we do need to look
> into the frame?

If we have a device with multiple Tx queues, but XPS is not configured
or system is running on uniprocessor system, then networking core code
selects Tx queue depending on the flow to utilize as much Tx queues as
possible but without breaking frames order.
This selection happens in net/core/dev.c:skb_tx_hash() as:

reciprocal_scale(skb_get_hash(skb), qcount)

where 'qcount' is the total number of Tx queues on the network device.

If skb has not been hashed prior to this line, then skb_get_hash() will
call flow dissector to generate a new hash. That's why flow dissection
can occur on Tx path.


Hi Alexander

So it looks like you are now skipping this hash. Which in your
testing, give better results, because the protocol is already set
correctly. But are there cases when the protocol is not set correctly?
We really do need to look into the frame?

Actually no, I'm not skipping the entire hashing, I'm only skipping
tag_ops->flow_dissect() (helper that only alters network offset and
replaces fake ETH_P_XDSA with the actual protocol) call on Tx path,
because this only breaks flow dissection logics. All skbs are still
processed and hashed by the generic code that goes after that call.

How about when an outer header has just been removed? The frame was
received on a GRE tunnel, the GRE header has just been removed, and
now the frame is on its way out? Is the protocol still GRE, and we
should look into the frame to determine if it is IPv4, ARP etc?

Your patch looks to improve things for the cases you have tested, but
i'm wondering if there are other use cases where we really do need to
look into the frame? In which case, your fix is doing the wrong thing.
Should we be extending the tagger to handle the TX case as well as the
RX case?

We really have two options: don't call tag_ops->flow_dissect() on Tx
(this patch), or extend tagger callbacks to handle Tx path too. I was
using both of this for several months each and couldn't detect cases
where the first one was worse than the second.
I mean, there _might_ be such cases in theory, and if they will appear
we should extend our taggers. But for now I don't see the necessity to
do this as generic flow dissection logics works as expected after this
patch and is completely broken without it.
And remember that we have the reverse logic on Tx and all skbs are
firstly queued on slave netdevice and only then on master/CPU port.

It would be nice to see what other people think about it anyways.

Your patch seems appropriate to me and quite frankly I am not sure why
flow dissection on RX is done at the DSA master device level, where we
have not parsed the DSA tag yet, instead of being done at the DSA slave
network device level. It seems to me that if the DSA master has N RX
queues, we should be creating the DSA slave devices with the same amount
of RX queues and perform RPS there against a standard Ethernet frame
(sans DSA tag).

For TX the story is a little different because we can have multiqueue
DSA slave network devices in order to steer traffic towards particular
switch queues and we could do XPS there that way.

What do you think?

Hi Florian,

First of all, thank you for the "Reviewed-by"!

I agree with you that all the network stack processing should be
performed on standard frames without CPU tags and on corresponding
slave netdevices. So I think we really should think about extending
DSA core code to create slaves with at least as many Rx queues as
master device have. With this done we could remove .flow_dissect()
callback from DSA taggers entirely and simplify traffic flow.

Also, if we get back to Tx processing, number of Tx queues on slaves
should be equal to number of queues on switch inself in ideal case.
Maybe we should then apply this rule to Rx queues too, i.e. create
slaves with the number of Rx queues that switch has?

(for example, I'm currently working with the switches that have 8 Rxqs
and 8 Txqs, but their Ethernet controlers / CPU ports have only 4/4)

Regards,
á á á á á á