Jason Xing wrote:

On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 1:37 PM Martin KaFai Lau [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 10/29/24 8:04 PM, Jason Xing wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

   static void skb_tstamp_tx_output(struct sk_buff *orig_skb,
                                const struct sk_buff *ack_skb,
                                struct skb_shared_hwtstamps *hwtstamps,

@@ -5549,6 +5575,9 @@ static void skb_tstamp_tx_output(struct sk_buff *orig_skb,
       u32 tsflags;

       tsflags = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags);
+     if (!sk_tstamp_tx_flags(sk, tsflags, tstype))

I still don't get this part since v2. How does it work with cmsg only
SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_*?

I tried with "./txtimestamp -6 -c 1 -C -N -L ::1" and it does not return any tx
time stamp after this patch.

I am likely missing something
or v2 concluded that this behavior change is acceptable?

Sorry, I submitted this series accidentally removing one important
thing which is similar to what Vadim Fedorenko mentioned in the v1
[1]:
adding another member like sk_flags_bpf to handle the cmsg case.

Willem, would it be acceptable to add another field in struct sock to
help us recognise the case where BPF and cmsg works parallelly?

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/662873cb-a897-464e-bdb3-edf01363c3b2@linux.dev/ (local)

The current timestamp flags don't need a u32. Maybe just reserve a bit
for this purpose?

Sure. Good suggestion.

But I think only using one bit to reflect whether the sk->sk_tsflags
is used by normal or cmsg features is not enough. The existing
implementation in tcp_sendmsg_locked() doesn't override the
sk->sk_tsflags even the normal and cmsg features enabled parallelly.
It only overrides sockc.tsflags in tcp_sendmsg_locked(). Based on
that, even if at some point users suddenly remove the cmsg use and
then the prior normal SO_TIMESTAMPING continues to work.

How about this, please see below:
For now, sk->sk_tsflags only uses 17 bits (see the last one
SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_RX_FILTER). The cmsg feature only uses 4 flags
(see SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_RECORD_MASK in __sock_cmsg_send()). With that
said, we could reserve the highest four bits for cmsg use for the
moment. Four bits represents four points where we can record the
timestamp in the tx case.

Do you agree on this point?

I don't follow.

I probably miss the entire point.

The goal for sockcm fields is to start with the sk field and
optionally override based on cmsg. This is what sockcm_init does for
tsflags.

This information is for the skb, so these are recording flags.

Why does the new datapath need to know whether features are enabled
through setsockopt or on a per-call basis with a cmsg?

The goal was always to keep the reporting flags per socket, but make
the recording flag per packet, mainly for sampling.

If a user uses 1) cmsg feature, 2) bpf feature at the same time, we
allow each feature to work independently.

How could it work? It relies on sk_tstamp_tx_flags() function in the
current patch: when we are in __skb_tstamp_tx(), we cannot know which
flags in each feature are set without fetching sk->sk_tsflags and
sk->sk_tsflags_bpf. Then we are able to know what timestamp we want to
record. To put it in a simple way, we're not sure if the user wants to
see a SCHED timestamp by using the cmsg feature in __skb_tstamp_tx()
if we hit this test statement "skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags &
SKBTX_SCHED_TSTAMP)". So we need those two socket tsflag fields to
help us.

I also don't see how a new bit/integer in a sk can help to tell the per cmsg
on/off. This cmsg may have tx timestamp on while the next cmsg can have it off.

It's not hard to use it because we can clear every socket cmsg tsflags
when we're done the check in tcp_sendmsg_locked() if the cmsg feature
is not enabled. Then we can accurately know which timestamp should we
print in the tx path.

quoted

There is still one bit in skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags. How about define a
SKBTX_BPF for everything. imo, the fine control on
SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_{SCHED,SOFTWARE} is not useful for bpf. Almost all of the
time the bpf program wants all available time stamps (sched, software, and
hwtstamp if the NIC has it).

I like the approach of just calling BPF on every hook. Assuming that
the call is very cheap, which AFAIK is true.

In that case we don't need complex branching in C to optionally skip
this step, as we do for reporting to userspace.

All the logic and complexity is in the BPF program itself.

We obviously then let go of the goal to model the BPF API close to the
existing SO_TIMESTAMPING API. Though I advocated for keeping them
aligned, I also think we should just tailor it to what makes most
sense in the BPF space.
 

Sorry, I really doubt that we can lose the fine control. 

Since BPF is called at each reporting point, no control is lost,
actually.

I still
reckon that providing more options to users is a good way to go,
especially for some latency sensitive applications, enabling one or
two or three tx flags could lead to different performances. For the
users of SO_TIMESTAMPING, they use the feature very differently. Not
all users prefer to record everything.

quoted

Since bpf is in the kernel, it is much cheaper
because it does not need to do skb_alloc/clone and queue to the error queue.

I think the bpf prog needs to capture a timestamp at the sendmsg() time, so a
bpf prog needs to be called at sendmsg().

Agreed, I planned to implement this after this series.

quoted

Then it may as well allow the bpf
prog@sendmsg() to decide if it needs to set the SKBTX_BPF bit in
skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags or not.

TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->txstamp_ack can also work similarly. There is still unused bit
in "struct tcp_skb_cb", so may be adding TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->bpf_txstamp_ack

Then there is no need to control SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_* through bpf_setsockopt().
It only needs one bpf specific socket option like bpf_setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET,
BPF_TX_TIMESTAMPING) to guard if the bpf-prog@sendmsg() needs to be called or
not. There are already other TCP_BPF_IW,TCP_BPF_SNDCWND_CLAMP,... specific
socket options.

imo, this is a simpler interface and also gives the bpf prog per packet control
at the same time.

Very interesting idea, but the precondition is that we give up the
fine control...

Thanks,
Jason