On Sep 23, 2019, at 4:13 AM, Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com<mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com>> wrote:
Hi Keith, On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 08:28:32AM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote: On Sep 18, 2019, at 6:54 PM, Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com<mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com>> wrote: Many features require to store data inside the mbuf. As the room in mbuf structure is limited, it is not possible to have a field for each feature. Also, changing fields in the mbuf structure can break the API or ABI. This commit addresses these issues, by enabling the dynamic registration of fields or flags: - a dynamic field is a named area in the rte_mbuf structure, with a given size (>= 1 byte) and alignment constraint. - a dynamic flag is a named bit in the rte_mbuf structure. The typical use case is a PMD that registers space for an offload feature, when the application requests to enable this feature. As the space in mbuf is limited, the space should only be reserved if it is going to be used (i.e when the application explicitly asks for it). The registration can be done at any moment, but it is not possible to unregister fields or flags for now. Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com<mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com>> Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net<mailto:tho...@monjalon.net>> — The idea of registration for space in the mbuf I am not a big fan. I did like Konstantin’s suggestion of having the compiler help with optimizing the code, but with a slight difference. Maybe I misunderstand, but now with this design you have to pass the offsets to different parts of the application or place in global memory or have each section request the offsets. It seems great if the application is one big application or an appliance model application having control of the whole design not so good for service chains like designs where different parts of the whole application is design by different teams. If the global variable storing the offset is defined in the mbuf layer, what would be the problem? Are you assuming the values are shared between primary/secondary model or between processes using shared memory? If moving the packet data via shared memory to a different application written by a different company you still have to move that metadata. If the type was carried with the mbuf we can easily convey a small type value or we would need to tell the other side we have all of this registration information to send. I would suggest the number of mbuf types will be small over time and I believe a 4 bit or 8 bit type is reasonable. In many protocols using a type value is used to convey this type of information. We can even tightly control the number of types DPDK controls and then leave some for user defined if we like. The only things you would have to do is: 1/ ensure the offset is registered rte_mbuf_dyn_timestamp_register() 2/ use helpers rte_mbuf_dyn_timestamp_get(), rte_mbuf_dyn_timestamp_set(), ... Konstantin’s suggest if I understand it was to use structures to allow the compiler to optimize the access to the mbuf and I like that idea, but with one change we add a field in the mbuf to define the mbuf structure type. Say 0 is the standard rte_mbuf type then type 1 could be the IPSec offset type mbuf, type 2 could be something else, … The type 0 looks just like the mbuf we have today with maybe the optional fields set to reserved or some type of filler variables to reserve the holes in the structure. Then type 1 is the IPSec mbuf and in the reserved sections of the mbuf contain the IPSec related data with the standard mbuf fields still matching the type 0 version. This very look like the "selective layout" in our presentation [1], page 14. Your example talks about IPsec, but someone else will want to use a sequence number, another one a timestamp, and another one will want to use this space for its own application. There are a lot of use cases, and it does not scale to have a layout for each of them. Worst, if someone wants IPsec + a sequence number, how can it work? One of the problem to solve is to avoid mutually exclusive feature (i.e. union of fields that cannot be used together in the mbuf). This allows the mbuf to be used by the developer and the compiler now knows exactly where the fields are located in the structure and does not have to deal with any of the macros and offsets and registration suggested here. Just cast the mbuf pointer into the new type mbuf structure. We just have to make sure the code that needs to use a given mbuf type has access to the structure definitions. With the current proposal, we can imagine an API to ask to register a field at a specific offset. It can then be used in the application, so that accesses are done at no cost compared to a static field, because the offset would be const. In the driver, the same logic could be used, but dynamically: if (offset == PREFERRED_OFFSET) { /* code with static offset */ } else { /* generic code */ } But I'm not sure it would scale a lot if there are several features using dynamic fields. If the mbufs it going to be translated from one type mbuf to another mbuf type, we just have to define that type and then cast the mbuf pointer to that structure. When an mbuf is received from IPSec PMD then the application needs to forward that mbuf to the next stage it can reset the type to 0 or to another type filling in the reserved fields to be used by the next stage in the pipeline. What you describe is one use case. What could be done with the API mentionned above (but I think it is dangerous), is to allow a user to register 2 different fields at the same offset, using a specific flag. This could work if the user knows that these 2 fields are never used at the same time. The mbuf now contains the type and every point in the application can look at the type to determine how that mbuf is defined. I am sure there are some holes here, but I think it is a better solution then using all of these macros, offset values and registration APIs. I'm not convinced having selective layouts is doable. The layouts cannot fit all possible use cases, and managing the different layouts in the driver looks difficult to me. Additionnaly, it does not solve the problem of mutually exclusive features. I too at one time wanted some type of allocation or registration for private mbuf space and applying to these limited fields in the mbuf header may have been reasonable. The problem is using registration and moving that information between processes is going to be hard to get right. For a single Appliance model application it would work great and not in a non-appliance model applications. The type/structure method can help and it could have problems too, but using a type/struct design seems to be one of the BKMs (Best Known Methods) in the industry. To be honest it maybe we just take the hit in performance and add a third cache line as I am sure trying to squeeze metadata into these very limit fields will be a challenge IMO. I am not suggesting we add a cache line to every mbuf only to the pools that require the extra metadata by using the private space if that is reasonable. The applications needing a lot of metadata will just have to take the hit in performance anyway. Having to grab a metadata value via a set of macros and inline functions seems like it will consume more cycles then just a type/structure method as the compiler will help optimize the code without having to call any macros or inline functions. Thanks for the feedback. Olivier [1] https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/dpdkbordeaux2019/2b/dpdk-201909-dyn-mbuf.pdf Regards, Keith
