From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Date: 2017-01-02 22:30:47
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
From: Jason Wang <hidden> Date: 2017-01-03 06:14:55
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted hunk
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Date: 2017-01-03 16:48:39
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Or use ETH_DATA_LEN here consider we only allocate a size of GOOD_PACKET_LEN for
each small buffer?
Thanks
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
As for capping it at GOOD_PACKET_LEN this has the nice benefit of avoiding any
underestimates in EWMA predictions because it appears min estimates are capped
at GOOD_PACKET_LEN via get_mergeable_buf_len().
Thanks,
John
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Date: 2017-01-03 16:48:59
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Or use ETH_DATA_LEN here consider we only allocate a size of GOOD_PACKET_LEN for
each small buffer?
Thanks
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
As for capping it at GOOD_PACKET_LEN this has the nice benefit of avoiding any
underestimates in EWMA predictions because it appears min estimates are capped
at GOOD_PACKET_LEN via get_mergeable_buf_len().
Thanks,
John
From: Jason Wang <hidden> Date: 2017-01-04 03:16:23
case.
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Or use ETH_DATA_LEN here consider we only allocate a size of GOOD_PACKET_LEN for
each small buffer?
Thanks
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to
notify the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by
virtio now.
As for capping it at GOOD_PACKET_LEN this has the nice benefit of avoiding any
underestimates in EWMA predictions because it appears min estimates are capped
at GOOD_PACKET_LEN via get_mergeable_buf_len().
This seems something misunderstanding here, I meant only use
GOOD_PACKET_LEN for small buffer (which does not use EWMA).
Thanks
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Date: 2017-01-04 18:58:04
[...]
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
quoted
As for capping it at GOOD_PACKET_LEN this has the nice benefit of avoiding any
underestimates in EWMA predictions because it appears min estimates are capped
at GOOD_PACKET_LEN via get_mergeable_buf_len().
This seems something misunderstanding here, I meant only use GOOD_PACKET_LEN for
small buffer (which does not use EWMA).
From: Jason Wang <hidden> Date: 2017-01-05 03:09:22
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host
about MTU change in this case?
Thanks
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Date: 2017-01-09 23:05:59
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Date: 2017-01-09 23:13:37
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced. Although the guest
by reducing its MTU in some sense must expect this. Likewise if the host were
to change MTU after virtio_net probe time the guest would not learn about it.
I think at best negotiating the mtu is just a hint? If system _really_ cares
we could use lldp or some other out of band mechanism to learn/set/adjust MTU
on both systems and it would be more robust. I'm not actually convinced this
is a problem in bare metal systems we have the same issue with physical
switches and solve it out of band via configuration, protocols, etc.
.John
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Date: 2017-01-09 23:24:47
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
I didn't know. What place in code does this?
Although the guest
by reducing its MTU in some sense must expect this. Likewise if the host were
to change MTU after virtio_net probe time the guest would not learn about it.
The spec explicitly disallows this last one.
I think at best negotiating the mtu is just a hint? If system _really_ cares
we could use lldp or some other out of band mechanism to learn/set/adjust MTU
on both systems and it would be more robust. I'm not actually convinced this
is a problem in bare metal systems we have the same issue with physical
switches and solve it out of band via configuration, protocols, etc.
.John
ATM we don't have negotiation in virtio, just a max mtu limit.
This doesn't free guest from configuring mtu correctly,
just helps it avoid doing something clearly bogus.
--
MST
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Date: 2017-01-09 23:49:50
On 17-01-09 03:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
I didn't know. What place in code does this?
hmm in many of the drivers it is convention to use the mtu to set the rx
buffer sizes and a receive side max length filter. For example in the Intel
drivers if a packet with length greater than MTU + some headroom is received we
drop it. I guess in the networking stack RX path though nothing forces this and
virtio doesn't have any code to drop packets on rx size.
In virtio I don't see any existing case currently. In the XDP case though we
need to ensure packets fit in a page for the time being which is why I was
looking at this code and generated this patch.
quoted
Although the guest
by reducing its MTU in some sense must expect this. Likewise if the host were
to change MTU after virtio_net probe time the guest would not learn about it.
The spec explicitly disallows this last one.
OK. By the way were do I get the latest source I see the published virtio1.0 at
the oasis-open.org site but it doesn't mention the MTU logic.
quoted
I think at best negotiating the mtu is just a hint? If system _really_ cares
we could use lldp or some other out of band mechanism to learn/set/adjust MTU
on both systems and it would be more robust. I'm not actually convinced this
is a problem in bare metal systems we have the same issue with physical
switches and solve it out of band via configuration, protocols, etc.
.John
ATM we don't have negotiation in virtio, just a max mtu limit.
This doesn't free guest from configuring mtu correctly,
just helps it avoid doing something clearly bogus.
Yep. I'm fine with calling it a misconfiguration if the guest reduces the MTU
and the host continues to send packets @ advertised MTU.
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Date: 2017-01-09 23:59:00
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:49:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
On 17-01-09 03:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
I didn't know. What place in code does this?
hmm in many of the drivers it is convention to use the mtu to set the rx
buffer sizes and a receive side max length filter. For example in the Intel
drivers if a packet with length greater than MTU + some headroom is received we
drop it. I guess in the networking stack RX path though nothing forces this and
virtio doesn't have any code to drop packets on rx size.
In virtio I don't see any existing case currently. In the XDP case though we
need to ensure packets fit in a page for the time being which is why I was
looking at this code and generated this patch.
I'd say just look at the hardware max mtu. Ignore the configured mtu.
quoted
quoted
Although the guest
by reducing its MTU in some sense must expect this. Likewise if the host were
to change MTU after virtio_net probe time the guest would not learn about it.
The spec explicitly disallows this last one.
OK. By the way were do I get the latest source I see the published virtio1.0 at
the oasis-open.org site but it doesn't mention the MTU logic.
You need to get it from svn.
quoted
quoted
I think at best negotiating the mtu is just a hint? If system _really_ cares
we could use lldp or some other out of band mechanism to learn/set/adjust MTU
on both systems and it would be more robust. I'm not actually convinced this
is a problem in bare metal systems we have the same issue with physical
switches and solve it out of band via configuration, protocols, etc.
.John
ATM we don't have negotiation in virtio, just a max mtu limit.
This doesn't free guest from configuring mtu correctly,
just helps it avoid doing something clearly bogus.
Yep. I'm fine with calling it a misconfiguration if the guest reduces the MTU
and the host continues to send packets @ advertised MTU.
From: Jason Wang <hidden> Date: 2017-01-10 02:29:48
On 2017年01月10日 07:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:49:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend<redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
I didn't know. What place in code does this?
hmm in many of the drivers it is convention to use the mtu to set the rx
buffer sizes and a receive side max length filter. For example in the Intel
drivers if a packet with length greater than MTU + some headroom is received we
drop it. I guess in the networking stack RX path though nothing forces this and
virtio doesn't have any code to drop packets on rx size.
In virtio I don't see any existing case currently. In the XDP case though we
need to ensure packets fit in a page for the time being which is why I was
looking at this code and generated this patch.
I'd say just look at the hardware max mtu. Ignore the configured mtu.
Does this work for small buffers consider it always allocate skb with
size of GOOD_PACKET_LEN? I think in any case, we should limit max_mtu to
GOOD_PACKET_LEN for small buffers.
Thanks
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Date: 2017-01-10 02:51:36
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:29:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年01月10日 07:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:49:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend<redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
I didn't know. What place in code does this?
hmm in many of the drivers it is convention to use the mtu to set the rx
buffer sizes and a receive side max length filter. For example in the Intel
drivers if a packet with length greater than MTU + some headroom is received we
drop it. I guess in the networking stack RX path though nothing forces this and
virtio doesn't have any code to drop packets on rx size.
In virtio I don't see any existing case currently. In the XDP case though we
need to ensure packets fit in a page for the time being which is why I was
looking at this code and generated this patch.
I'd say just look at the hardware max mtu. Ignore the configured mtu.
Does this work for small buffers consider it always allocate skb with size
of GOOD_PACKET_LEN?
Spec says hardware won't send in packets > max mtu in config space.
I think in any case, we should limit max_mtu to
GOOD_PACKET_LEN for small buffers.
Thanks
XDP seems to have a bunch of weird restrictions, I just
do not like it that the logic spills out to all drivers.
What if someone decides to extend it to two pages in the future?
Recode it all in all drivers ...
Why can't net core enforce mtu?
--
MST
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Date: 2017-01-10 03:31:03
On 17-01-09 06:51 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:29:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月10日 07:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:49:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend<redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
I didn't know. What place in code does this?
hmm in many of the drivers it is convention to use the mtu to set the rx
buffer sizes and a receive side max length filter. For example in the Intel
drivers if a packet with length greater than MTU + some headroom is received we
drop it. I guess in the networking stack RX path though nothing forces this and
virtio doesn't have any code to drop packets on rx size.
In virtio I don't see any existing case currently. In the XDP case though we
need to ensure packets fit in a page for the time being which is why I was
looking at this code and generated this patch.
I'd say just look at the hardware max mtu. Ignore the configured mtu.
Does this work for small buffers consider it always allocate skb with size
of GOOD_PACKET_LEN?
Spec says hardware won't send in packets > max mtu in config space.
quoted
I think in any case, we should limit max_mtu to
GOOD_PACKET_LEN for small buffers.
Thanks
XDP seems to have a bunch of weird restrictions, I just
do not like it that the logic spills out to all drivers.
What if someone decides to extend it to two pages in the future?
Recode it all in all drivers ...
Why can't net core enforce mtu?
OK I agree I'll put most the logic in rtnetlink.c when the program is added
or removed.
But, I'm looking at the non-XDP receive_small path now and wondering how does
multiple buffer receives work (e.g. packet larger than GOOD_PACKET_LEN?) I think
this is what Jason is looking at as well? The mergeable case clearly looks at
num_bufs in the descriptor to construct multi-buffer packets but nothing like
that exists in the small_receive path as best I can tell.
.John
From: Jason Wang <hidden> Date: 2017-01-10 03:34:32
On 2017年01月10日 10:51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:29:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月10日 07:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:49:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend<redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
I didn't know. What place in code does this?
hmm in many of the drivers it is convention to use the mtu to set the rx
buffer sizes and a receive side max length filter. For example in the Intel
drivers if a packet with length greater than MTU + some headroom is received we
drop it. I guess in the networking stack RX path though nothing forces this and
virtio doesn't have any code to drop packets on rx size.
In virtio I don't see any existing case currently. In the XDP case though we
need to ensure packets fit in a page for the time being which is why I was
looking at this code and generated this patch.
I'd say just look at the hardware max mtu. Ignore the configured mtu.
Does this work for small buffers consider it always allocate skb with size
of GOOD_PACKET_LEN?
Spec says hardware won't send in packets > max mtu in config space.
Yes, but if max mtu is greater than GOOD_PACKET_LEN, packet will be dropped.
quoted
I think in any case, we should limit max_mtu to
GOOD_PACKET_LEN for small buffers.
Thanks
XDP seems to have a bunch of weird restrictions, I just
do not like it that the logic spills out to all drivers.
What if someone decides to extend it to two pages in the future?
Recode it all in all drivers ...
Why can't net core enforce mtu?
Not sure it's a good idea to change mtu silently without notifying user.
Thanks
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Date: 2017-01-10 03:55:41
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 07:30:34PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
On 17-01-09 06:51 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:29:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月10日 07:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:49:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend<redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
I didn't know. What place in code does this?
hmm in many of the drivers it is convention to use the mtu to set the rx
buffer sizes and a receive side max length filter. For example in the Intel
drivers if a packet with length greater than MTU + some headroom is received we
drop it. I guess in the networking stack RX path though nothing forces this and
virtio doesn't have any code to drop packets on rx size.
In virtio I don't see any existing case currently. In the XDP case though we
need to ensure packets fit in a page for the time being which is why I was
looking at this code and generated this patch.
I'd say just look at the hardware max mtu. Ignore the configured mtu.
Does this work for small buffers consider it always allocate skb with size
of GOOD_PACKET_LEN?
Spec says hardware won't send in packets > max mtu in config space.
quoted
I think in any case, we should limit max_mtu to
GOOD_PACKET_LEN for small buffers.
Thanks
XDP seems to have a bunch of weird restrictions, I just
do not like it that the logic spills out to all drivers.
What if someone decides to extend it to two pages in the future?
Recode it all in all drivers ...
Why can't net core enforce mtu?
OK I agree I'll put most the logic in rtnetlink.c when the program is added
or removed.
But, I'm looking at the non-XDP receive_small path now and wondering how does
multiple buffer receives work (e.g. packet larger than GOOD_PACKET_LEN?)
I don't understand the question. Look at add_recvbuf_small,
it adds a tiny buffer for head and then the skb.
I think
this is what Jason is looking at as well? The mergeable case clearly looks at
num_bufs in the descriptor to construct multi-buffer packets but nothing like
that exists in the small_receive path as best I can tell.
.John
There's always a single buffer there.
BTW it was always a legacy path but if it's now important for people we
should probably check ANY_LAYOUT and put header linearly with the packet
if there.
--
MST
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Date: 2017-01-10 04:25:59
On 17-01-09 07:55 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 07:30:34PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 06:51 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:29:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月10日 07:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:49:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend<redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
I didn't know. What place in code does this?
hmm in many of the drivers it is convention to use the mtu to set the rx
buffer sizes and a receive side max length filter. For example in the Intel
drivers if a packet with length greater than MTU + some headroom is received we
drop it. I guess in the networking stack RX path though nothing forces this and
virtio doesn't have any code to drop packets on rx size.
In virtio I don't see any existing case currently. In the XDP case though we
need to ensure packets fit in a page for the time being which is why I was
looking at this code and generated this patch.
I'd say just look at the hardware max mtu. Ignore the configured mtu.
Does this work for small buffers consider it always allocate skb with size
of GOOD_PACKET_LEN?
Spec says hardware won't send in packets > max mtu in config space.
quoted
I think in any case, we should limit max_mtu to
GOOD_PACKET_LEN for small buffers.
Thanks
XDP seems to have a bunch of weird restrictions, I just
do not like it that the logic spills out to all drivers.
What if someone decides to extend it to two pages in the future?
Recode it all in all drivers ...
Why can't net core enforce mtu?
OK I agree I'll put most the logic in rtnetlink.c when the program is added
or removed.
But, I'm looking at the non-XDP receive_small path now and wondering how does
multiple buffer receives work (e.g. packet larger than GOOD_PACKET_LEN?)
I don't understand the question. Look at add_recvbuf_small,
it adds a tiny buffer for head and then the skb.
Specifically this seems to fail with mergeable buffers disabled
On the host:
# ip link set dev tap0 mtu 9000
# ping 22.2 -s 2048
On the guest:
# insmod ./drivers/net/virtio_net.ko
# ip link set dev eth0 mtu 9000
With mergeable buffers enabled no problems it works as I expect at least.
quoted
I think
this is what Jason is looking at as well? The mergeable case clearly looks at
num_bufs in the descriptor to construct multi-buffer packets but nothing like
that exists in the small_receive path as best I can tell.
.John
There's always a single buffer there.
BTW it was always a legacy path but if it's now important for people we
should probably check ANY_LAYOUT and put header linearly with the packet
if there.
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Date: 2017-01-10 05:00:59
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 08:25:43PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
On 17-01-09 07:55 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 07:30:34PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 06:51 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:29:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月10日 07:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:49:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend<redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
I didn't know. What place in code does this?
hmm in many of the drivers it is convention to use the mtu to set the rx
buffer sizes and a receive side max length filter. For example in the Intel
drivers if a packet with length greater than MTU + some headroom is received we
drop it. I guess in the networking stack RX path though nothing forces this and
virtio doesn't have any code to drop packets on rx size.
In virtio I don't see any existing case currently. In the XDP case though we
need to ensure packets fit in a page for the time being which is why I was
looking at this code and generated this patch.
I'd say just look at the hardware max mtu. Ignore the configured mtu.
Does this work for small buffers consider it always allocate skb with size
of GOOD_PACKET_LEN?
Spec says hardware won't send in packets > max mtu in config space.
quoted
I think in any case, we should limit max_mtu to
GOOD_PACKET_LEN for small buffers.
Thanks
XDP seems to have a bunch of weird restrictions, I just
do not like it that the logic spills out to all drivers.
What if someone decides to extend it to two pages in the future?
Recode it all in all drivers ...
Why can't net core enforce mtu?
OK I agree I'll put most the logic in rtnetlink.c when the program is added
or removed.
But, I'm looking at the non-XDP receive_small path now and wondering how does
multiple buffer receives work (e.g. packet larger than GOOD_PACKET_LEN?)
I don't understand the question. Look at add_recvbuf_small,
it adds a tiny buffer for head and then the skb.
Specifically this seems to fail with mergeable buffers disabled
On the host:
# ip link set dev tap0 mtu 9000
# ping 22.2 -s 2048
On the guest:
# insmod ./drivers/net/virtio_net.ko
# ip link set dev eth0 mtu 9000
Why would it work? You are sending a packet larger than ethernet MTU.
With mergeable buffers enabled no problems it works as I expect at least.
We don't expect to get these packets but
mergeable is able to process them anyway.
It's an accident :)
quoted
quoted
I think
this is what Jason is looking at as well? The mergeable case clearly looks at
num_bufs in the descriptor to construct multi-buffer packets but nothing like
that exists in the small_receive path as best I can tell.
.John
There's always a single buffer there.
BTW it was always a legacy path but if it's now important for people we
should probably check ANY_LAYOUT and put header linearly with the packet
if there.
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Date: 2017-01-10 14:51:06
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 04:51:34AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
XDP seems to have a bunch of weird restrictions, I just
do not like it that the logic spills out to all drivers.
What if someone decides to extend it to two pages in the future?
Recode it all in all drivers ...
Why can't net core enforce mtu?
And BTW limits on MTU are a problem that will have to be
addressed sooner or later, disabling offloads on the NIC
is one thing, but reconfiguring all of the network
with a lower MTU is another.
From: Jason Wang <hidden> Date: 2017-01-11 03:37:17
On 2017年01月10日 13:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 08:25:43PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 07:55 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 07:30:34PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 06:51 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:29:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月10日 07:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:49:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
[...]
quoted
On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
quoted
On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
has loaded.
This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend<redacted>
---
[...]
quoted
quoted
OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
needs to read the mtu via
virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
or we may break the negotiated mtu.
Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
notification if the MTU is negotiated.
Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
MTU change in this case?
Thanks
Why does host care?
Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
I didn't know. What place in code does this?
hmm in many of the drivers it is convention to use the mtu to set the rx
buffer sizes and a receive side max length filter. For example in the Intel
drivers if a packet with length greater than MTU + some headroom is received we
drop it. I guess in the networking stack RX path though nothing forces this and
virtio doesn't have any code to drop packets on rx size.
In virtio I don't see any existing case currently. In the XDP case though we
need to ensure packets fit in a page for the time being which is why I was
looking at this code and generated this patch.
I'd say just look at the hardware max mtu. Ignore the configured mtu.
Does this work for small buffers consider it always allocate skb with size
of GOOD_PACKET_LEN?
Spec says hardware won't send in packets > max mtu in config space.
quoted
I think in any case, we should limit max_mtu to
GOOD_PACKET_LEN for small buffers.
Thanks
XDP seems to have a bunch of weird restrictions, I just
do not like it that the logic spills out to all drivers.
What if someone decides to extend it to two pages in the future?
Recode it all in all drivers ...
Why can't net core enforce mtu?
OK I agree I'll put most the logic in rtnetlink.c when the program is added
or removed.
But, I'm looking at the non-XDP receive_small path now and wondering how does
multiple buffer receives work (e.g. packet larger than GOOD_PACKET_LEN?)
I don't understand the question. Look at add_recvbuf_small,
it adds a tiny buffer for head and then the skb.
Specifically this seems to fail with mergeable buffers disabled
On the host:
# ip link set dev tap0 mtu 9000
# ping 22.2 -s 2048
On the guest:
# insmod ./drivers/net/virtio_net.ko
# ip link set dev eth0 mtu 9000
Why would it work? You are sending a packet larger than ethernet MTU.
Ok, does it mean virtio-net does not support Jumbo frame? And if it
can't work, use MAX_MTU as max_mtu is a bug to me.
quoted
With mergeable buffers enabled no problems it works as I expect at least.
We don't expect to get these packets but
mergeable is able to process them anyway.
It's an accident:)
But path MTU discovery indeed benefits from this "accident".
Thanks