On 09/02, Joe Damato wrote:

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 02:22:35PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 11:43:00 +0100 Joe Damato wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 03:31:05PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 13:12:01 +0000 Joe Damato wrote:  

quoted

+      doc: Set configurable NAPI instance settings.  

We should pause and think here how configuring NAPI params should
behave. NAPI instances are ephemeral, if you close and open the
device (or for some drivers change any BPF or ethtool setting)
the NAPIs may get wiped and recreated, discarding all configuration.

This is not how the sysfs API behaves, the sysfs settings on the device
survive close. It's (weirdly?) also not how queues behave, because we
have struct netdev{_rx,}_queue to store stuff persistently. Even tho
you'd think queues are as ephemeral as NAPIs if not more.

I guess we can either document this, and move on (which may be fine,
you have more practical experience than me). Or we can add an internal
concept of a "channel" (which perhaps maybe if you squint is what
ethtool -l calls NAPIs?) or just "napi_storage" as an array inside
net_device and store such config there. For simplicity of matching
config to NAPIs we can assume drivers add NAPI instances in order. 
If driver wants to do something more fancy we can add a variant of
netif_napi_add() which specifies the channel/storage to use.

Thoughts? I may be overly sensitive to the ephemeral thing, maybe
I work with unfortunate drivers...  

Thanks for pointing this out. I think this is an important case to
consider. Here's how I'm thinking about it.

There are two cases:

1) sysfs setting is used by existing/legacy apps: If the NAPIs are
discarded and recreated, the code I added to netif_napi_add_weight
in patch 1 and 3 should take care of that case preserving how sysfs
works today, I believe. I think we are good on this case ?

Agreed.

quoted

2) apps using netlink to set various custom settings. This seems
like a case where a future extension can be made to add a notifier
for NAPI changes (like the netdevice notifier?).

Yes, the notifier may help, but it's a bit of a stop gap / fallback.

quoted

If you think this is a good idea, then we'd do something like:
  1. Document that the NAPI settings are wiped when NAPIs are wiped
  2. In the future (not part of this series) a NAPI notifier is
     added
  3. User apps can then listen for NAPI create/delete events
     and update settings when a NAPI is created. It would be
     helpful, I think, for user apps to know about NAPI
     create/delete events in general because it means NAPI IDs are
     changing.

One could argue:

  When wiping/recreating a NAPI for an existing HW queue, that HW
  queue gets a new NAPI ID associated with it. User apps operating
  at this level probably care about NAPI IDs changing (as it affects
  epoll busy poll). Since the settings in this series are per-NAPI
  (and not per HW queue), the argument could be that user apps need
  to setup NAPIs when they are created and settings do not persist
  between NAPIs with different IDs even if associated with the same
  HW queue.

IDK if the fact that NAPI ID gets replaced was intentional in the first
place. I would venture a guess that the person who added the IDs was
working with NICs which have stable NAPI instances once the device is
opened. This is, unfortunately, not universally the case.

I just poked at bnxt, mlx5 and fbnic and all of them reallocate NAPIs
on an open device. Closer we get to queue API the more dynamic the whole
setup will become (read: the more often reconfigurations will happen).

[...]

quoted

quoted

I think you have much more practical experience when it comes to
dealing with drivers, so I am happy to follow your lead on this one,
but assuming drivers will "do a thing" seems mildly scary to me with
limited driver experience.

My two goals with this series are:
  1. Make it possible to set these values per NAPI
  2. Unblock the IRQ suspension series by threading the suspend
     parameter through the code path carved in this series

So, I'm happy to proceed with this series as you prefer whether
that's documentation or "napi_storage"; I think you are probably the
best person to answer this question :)

How do you feel about making this configuration opt-in / require driver
changes? What I'm thinking is that having the new "netif_napi_add()"
variant (or perhaps extending netif_napi_set_irq()) to take an extra
"index" parameter would make the whole thing much simpler.

What about extending netif_queue_set_napi instead? That function
takes a napi and a queue index.

Locally I kinda of hacked up something simple that:
  - Allocates napi_storage in net_device in alloc_netdev_mqs
  - Modifies netif_queue_set_napi to:
     if (napi)
       napi->storage = dev->napi_storage[queue_index];

I think I'm still missing the bit about the
max(rx_queues,tx_queues), though :(

quoted

Index would basically be an integer 0..n, where n is the number of
IRQs configured for the driver. The index of a NAPI instance would
likely match the queue ID of the queue the NAPI serves.

Hmmm. I'm hesitant about the "number of IRQs" part. What if there
are NAPIs for which no IRQ is allocated ~someday~ ?

It seems like (I could totally be wrong) that netif_queue_set_napi
can be called and work and create the association even without an
IRQ allocated.

I guess the issue is mostly the queue index question above: combined
rx/tx vs drivers having different numbers of rx and tx queues.

quoted

We can then allocate an array of "napi_configs" in net_device -
like we allocate queues, the array size would be max(num_rx_queue,
num_tx_queues). We just need to store a couple of ints so it will
be tiny compared to queue structs, anyway.

The NAPI_SET netlink op can then work based on NAPI index rather 
than the ephemeral NAPI ID. It can apply the config to all live
NAPI instances with that index (of which there really should only 
be one, unless driver is mid-reconfiguration somehow but even that
won't cause issues, we can give multiple instances the same settings)
and also store the user config in the array in net_device.

When new NAPI instance is associate with a NAPI index it should get
all the config associated with that index applied.

Thoughts? Does that makes sense, and if so do you think it's an
over-complication?

I think what you are proposing seems fine; I'm just working out the
implementation details and making sure I understand before sending
another revision.

What if instead of an extra storage index in UAPI, we make napi_id persistent?
Then we can keep using napi_id as a user-facing number for the configuration.

Having a stable napi_id would also be super useful for the epoll setup so you
don't have to match old/invalid ids to the new ones on device reset.

In the code, we can keep the same idea with napi_storage in netdev and
ask drivers to provide storage id, but keep that id internal.

The only complication with that is napi_hash_add/napi_hash_del that
happen in netif_napi_add_weight. So for the devices that allocate
new napi before removing the old ones (most devices?), we'd have to add
some new netif_napi_takeover(old_napi, new_napi) to remove the
old napi_id from the hash and reuse it in the new one.

So for mlx5, the flow would look like the following:

- mlx5e_safe_switch_params
  - mlx5e_open_channels
    - netif_napi_add(new_napi)
      - adds napi with 'ephemeral' napi id
  - mlx5e_switch_priv_channels
    - mlx5e_deactivate_priv_channels
      - napi_disable(old_napi)
      - netif_napi_del(old_napi) - this frees the old napi_id
  - mlx5e_activate_priv_channels
    - mlx5e_activate_channels
      - mlx5e_activate_channel
        - netif_napi_takeover(old_napi is gone, so probably take id from napi_storage?)
	  - if napi is not hashed - safe to reuse?
	- napi_enable

This is a bit ugly because we still have random napi ids during reset, but
is not super complicated implementation-wise. We can eventually improve
the above by splitting netif_napi_add_weight into two steps: allocate and
activate (to do the napi_id allocation & hashing). Thoughts?