Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] libbpf: use implicit XSKMAP lookup from AF_XDP XDP program

Björn Töpel [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 13:50, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Björn Töpel [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

From: Björn Töpel <redacted>

In commit 43e74c0267a3 ("bpf_xdp_redirect_map: Perform map lookup in
eBPF helper") the bpf_redirect_map() helper learned to do map lookup,
which means that the explicit lookup in the XDP program for AF_XDP is
not needed for post-5.3 kernels.

This commit adds the implicit map lookup with default action, which
improves the performance for the "rx_drop" [1] scenario with ~4%.

For pre-5.3 kernels, the bpf_redirect_map() returns XDP_ABORTED, and a
fallback path for backward compatibility is entered, where explicit
lookup is still performed. This means a slight regression for older
kernels (an additional bpf_redirect_map() call), but I consider that a
fair punishment for users not upgrading their kernels. ;-)

v1->v2: Backward compatibility (Toke) [2]

[1] # xdpsock -i eth0 -z -r
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/87pnirb3dc.fsf@toke.dk/ (local)

Suggested-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <redacted>
---
 tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
index b0f532544c91..391a126b3fd8 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c

@@ -274,33 +274,58 @@ static int xsk_load_xdp_prog(struct xsk_socket *xsk)
      /* This is the C-program:
       * SEC("xdp_sock") int xdp_sock_prog(struct xdp_md *ctx)
       * {
-      *     int index = ctx->rx_queue_index;
+      *     int ret, index = ctx->rx_queue_index;
       *
       *     // A set entry here means that the correspnding queue_id
       *     // has an active AF_XDP socket bound to it.
+      *     ret = bpf_redirect_map(&xsks_map, index, XDP_PASS);
+      *     ret &= XDP_PASS | XDP_REDIRECT;

Why the masking? Looks a bit weird (XDP return codes are not defined as
bitmask values), and it's not really needed, is it?

bpf_redirect_map() returns a 32-bit signed int, so the upper 32-bit
will need to be cleared. Having an explicit AND is one instruction
less than two shifts. So, it's an optimization (every instruction is
sacred).

OIC. Well, a comment explaining that might be nice (since you're doing
per-instruction comments anyway)? :)

-Toke