> On 26/01/2022 14:50, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > Nikolay Aleksandrov <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> On 26/01/2022 13:27, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > >>>> On 24/01/2022 19:20, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > >>>>> Similar to bpf_xdp_ct_lookup routine, introduce > >>>>> br_fdb_find_port_from_ifindex unstable helper in order to accelerate > >>>>> linux bridge with XDP. br_fdb_find_port_from_ifindex will perform a > >>>>> lookup in the associated bridge fdb table and it will return the > >>>>> output ifindex if the destination address is associated to a bridge > >>>>> port or -ENODEV for BOM traffic or if lookup fails. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> net/bridge/br.c | 21 +++++++++++++ > >>>>> net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > >>>>> net/bridge/br_private.h | 12 ++++++++ > >>>>> 3 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi Lorenzo, > >>> > >>> Hi Nikolay, > >>> > >>> thx for the review. > >>> > >>>> Please CC bridge maintainers for bridge-related patches, I've added > >>>> Roopa and the > >>>> bridge mailing list as well. Aside from that, the change is certainly > >>>> interesting, I've been > >>>> thinking about a similar helper for some time now, few comments below. > >>> > >>> yes, sorry for that. I figured it out after sending the series out. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Have you thought about the egress path and if by the current bridge > >>>> state the packet would > >>>> be allowed to egress through the found port from the lookup? I'd guess > >>>> you have to keep updating > >>>> the active ports list based on netlink events, but there's a lot of > >>>> egress bridge logic that > >>>> either have to be duplicated or somehow synced. Check should_deliver() > >>>> (br_forward.c) and later > >>>> egress stages, but I see how this is a good first step and perhaps we > >>>> can build upon it. > >>>> There are a few possible solutions, but I haven't tried anything yet, > >>>> most obvious being > >>>> yet another helper. :) > >>> > >>> ack, right but I am bit worried about adding too much logic and slow down > >>> xdp > >>> performances. I guess we can investigate first the approach proposed by > >>> Alexei > >>> and then revaluate. Agree? > >>> > >> > >> Sure, that approach sounds very interesting, but my point was that > >> bypassing the ingress and egress logic defeats most of the bridge > >> features. You just get an fdb hash table which you can build today > >> with ebpf without any changes to the kernel. :) You have multiple > >> states, flags and options for each port and each vlan which can change > >> dynamically based on external events (e.g. STP, config changes etc) > >> and they can affect forwarding even if the fdbs remain in the table. > > > > To me, leveraging all this is precisely the reason to have BPF helpers > > instead of just replicating state in BPF maps: it's very easy to do that > > and show a nice speedup, and then once you get all the corner cases > > covered that the in-kernel code already deals with, you've chipped away > > at that speedup and spent a lot of time essentially re-writing the > > battle-tested code already in the kernel. > > > > So I think figuring out how to do the state sync is the right thing to > > do; a second helper would be fine for this, IMO, but I'm not really > > familiar enough with the bridge code to really have a qualified opinion. > > > > -Toke > > > > Right, sounds good to me. IMO it should be required in order to get a > meaningful bridge > speedup, otherwise the solution is incomplete and you just do simple lookups > that ignore > all of the state that could impact the forwarding decision.
ack, I agree but I need to review it first since I am not so familiar with that codebase :) Doing so we can compare this solution with the one proposed by Alexei. Regards, Lorenzo > > Cheers, > Nik
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
