On 17-01-02 02:21 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 17-01-02 01:23 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
>
>>
>> Additionally I would like to point out this is an arbitrary length binary
>> blob (for undefined use, without even a specified encoding) that gets pushed
>> between user space and hardware ;) This seemed to get folks fairly excited in
>> the past.
>>
>
> The binary blob size is a little strange - but i think there is value
> in storing some "cookie" field. The challenge is whether the kernel
> gets to intepret it; in which case encoding must be specified. Or
> whether we should leave it up to user space - in which something
> like tc could standardize its own encodings.
>
Well having the length value avoids ending up with cookie1, cookie2, ...
values as folks push more and more data into the cookie.
I don't see any use in the kernel interpreting it. It has no use
for it as far as I can see. It doesn't appear to be metadata which
we use skb->mark for at the moment.
>> Some questions, exactly what do you mean by "port mappings" above? In
>> general the 'tc' API uses the netdev the netlink msg is processed on as
>> the port mapping. If you mean OVS port to netdev port I think this is
>> a OVS problem and nothing to do with 'tc'. For what its worth there is an
>> existing problem with 'tc' where rules only apply to a single ingress or
>> egress port which is limiting on hardware.
>>
>
> In our case the desire is to be able to correlate for a system wide
> mostly identity/key mapping.
>
The tuple <ifindex:qdisc:prio:handle> really should be unique why
not use this for system wide mappings?
The only thing I can think to do with this that I can't do with
the above tuple and a simple userspace lookup is stick hardware specific
"hints" in the cookie for the firmware to consume. Which would be
very helpful for what its worth.
>> The UFID in my ovs code base is defined as best I can tell here,
>>
>> [OVS_FLOW_ATTR_UFID] = { .type = NL_A_UNSPEC, .optional = true,
>> .min_len = sizeof(ovs_u128) },
>>
>> So you need 128 bits if you want a 1:1 mapping onto 'tc'. So rather
>> than an arbitrary blob why not make the case that 'tc' ids need to be
>> 128 bits long? Even if its just initially done in flower call it
>> flower_flow_id and define it so its not opaque and at least at the code
>> level it isn't an arbitrary blob of data.
>>
>
> I dont know what this UFID is, but do note:
> The idea is not new - the FIB for example has some such cookie
> (albeit a tiny one) which will typically be populated to tell
> you who/what installed the entry.
> I could see f.e use for this cookie to simplify and pretty print in
> a human language for the u32 classifier (i.e user space tc sets
> some fields in the cookie when updating kernel and when user space
> invokes get/dump it uses the cookie to intepret how to pretty print).
>
> I have attached a compile tested version of the cookies on actions
> (flat 64 bit; now that we have experienced the use when we have a
> large number of counters - I would not mind a 128 bit field).
>
Its a bit strange to push it as an action when its not really an
action in the traditional datapath.
I suspect the OVS usage is a simple 1:1 lookup from OVS id to TC id to
avoid a userspace map lookup.
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
>> And what are the "next" uses of this besides OVS. It would be really
>> valuable to see how this generalizes to other usage models. To avoid
>> embedding OVS syntax into 'tc'.
>>
>> Finally if you want to see an example of binary data encodings look at
>> how drivers/hardware/users are currently using the user defined bits in
>> ethtools ntuple API. Also track down out of tree drivers to see other
>> interesting uses. And that was capped at 64bits :/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
