Alexander Lobakin [off-list ref] writes:

[... snipping a bit of context here ...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

Yeah, I'd agree this kind of configuration is something that can be
added later, and also it's sort of orthogonal to the consumption of the
metadata itself.

Also, tying this configuration into the loading of an XDP program is a
terrible interface: these are hardware configuration options, let's just
put them into ethtool or 'ip link' like any other piece of device
configuration.

I don't believe it fits there, especially Ethtool. Ethtool is for
hardware configuration, XDP/AF_XDP is 95% software stuff (apart from
offload bits which is purely NFP's for now).

But XDP-hints is about consuming hardware features. When you're
configuring which metadata items you want, you're saying "please provide
me with these (hardware) features". So ethtool is an excellent place to
do that :)

With Ethtool you configure the hardware, e.g. it won't strip VLAN
tags if you disable rx-cvlan-stripping. With configuring metadata
you only tell what you want to see there, don't you?

Ah, I think we may be getting closer to identifying the disconnect
between our way of thinking about this!

In my mind, there's no separate "configuration of the metadata" step.
You simply tell the hardware what features you want (say, "enable
timestamps and VLAN offload"), and the driver will then provide the
information related to these features in the metadata area
unconditionally. All XDP hints is about, then, is a way for the driver
to inform the rest of the system how that information is actually laid
out in the metadata area.

Having a separate configuration knob to tell the driver "please lay out
these particular bits of metadata this way" seems like a totally
unnecessary (and quite complicated) feature to have when we can just let
the driver decide and use CO-RE to consume it?

quoted

quoted

I follow that way:

1) you pick a program you want to attach;
2) usually they are written for special needs and usecases;
3) so most likely that program will be tied with metadata/driver/etc
   in some way;
4) so you want to enable Hints of a particular format primarily for
   this program and usecase, same with threshold and everything
   else.

Pls explain how you see it, I might be wrong for sure.

As above: XDP hints is about giving XDP programs (and AF_XDP consumers)
access to metadata that is not currently available. Tying the lifetime
of that hardware configuration (i.e., which information to provide) to
the lifetime of an XDP program is not a good interface: for one thing,
how will it handle multiple programs? What about when XDP is not used at

Multiple progs is stuff I didn't cover, but will do later (as you
all say to me, "let's start with something simple" :)). Aaaand
multiple XDP progs (I'm not talking about attaching progs in
differeng modes) is not a kernel feature, rather a libpf feature,
so I believe it should be handled there later...

Right, but even if we don't *implement* it straight away we still need
to take it into consideration in the design. And expecting libxdp to
arbitrate between different XDP programs' metadata formats sounds like a
royal PITA :)

quoted

all but you still want to configure the same features?

What's the point of configuring metadata when there are no progs
attached? To configure it once and not on every prog attach? I'm
not saying I don't like it, just want to clarify.

See above: you turn on the features because you want the stack to
consume them.

Maybe I need opinions from some more people, just to have an
overview of how most of folks see it and would like to configure
it. 'Cause I heard from at least one of the consumers that
libpf API is a perfect place for Hints to him :)

Well, as a program author who wants to consume hints, you'd use
lib{bpf,xdp} APIs to do so (probably in the form of suitable CO-RE
macros)...

quoted

In addition, in every other case where we do dynamic data access (with
CO-RE) the BPF program is a consumer that modifies itself to access the
data provided by the kernel. I get that this is harder to achieve for
AF_XDP, but then let's solve that instead of making a totally
inconsistent interface for XDP.

I also see CO-RE more fitting and convenient way to use them, but
didn't manage to solve two things:

1) AF_XDP programs, so what to do with them? Prepare patches for
   LLVM to make it able to do CO-RE on AF_XDP program load? Or
   just hardcode them for particular usecases and NICs? What about
   "general-purpose" programs?

You provide a library to read the fields. Jesper actually already
implemented this, did you look at his code?

https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/tree/master/AF_XDP-interaction

It basically builds a lookup table at load-time using BTF information
from the kernel, keyed on BTF ID and field name, resolving them into
offsets. It's not quite the zero-overhead of CO-RE, but it's fairly
close and can be improved upon (CO-RE for userspace being one way of
doing that).

   And if hardcode, what's the point then to do Generic Hints at
   all? Then all it needs is making driver building some meta in
   front of frames via on-off button and that's it? Why BTF ID in
   the meta then if consumers will access meta hardcoded (via CO-RE
   or literally hardcoded, doesn't matter)?

You're quite right, we could probably implement all the access to
existing (fixed) metadata without using any BTF at all - just define a
common struct and some flags to designate which fields are set. In my
mind, there are a couple of reasons for going the BTF route instead:

- We can leverage CO-RE to get close to optimal efficiency in field
  access.

and, more importantly:

- It's infinitely extensible. With the infrastructure in place to make
  it really easy to consume metadata described by BTF, we lower the bar
  for future innovation in hardware offloads. Both for just adding new
  fixed-function stuff to hardware, but especially for fully
  programmable hardware.

2) In-kernel metadata consumers? Also do CO-RE? Otherwise, with no
   generic metadata structure they won't be able to benefit from
   Hints. But I guess we still need to provide kernel with meta?
   Or no?

In the short term, I think the "generic structure" approach is fine for
leveraging this in the stack. Both your and Jesper's series include
this, and I think that's totally fine. Longer term, if it turns out to
be useful to have something more dynamic for the stack consumption as
well, we could extend it to be CO-RE based as well (most likely by
having the stack load a "translator" BPF program or something along
those lines).

quoted

I'm as excited as you about the prospect of having totally programmable

But I mostly care about current generation with no programmable
Hints...

Well, see above; we should be able to support both :)

-Toke