[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v2] virtio_net: support inner header hash for GRE-encapsulated packets
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 11:47:19AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 1:33 PM Heng Qi <hengqi@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 11:52:23AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > å 2022/11/28 11:14, Heng Qi åé: > > > >On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:16:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > >>On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 5:08 PM Heng Qi <hengqi@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > > > >>>When VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS is negotiated and the tunnel is used to > > > >>>encapsulate the packets, the hash calculated using the outer header > > > >>>of the receive packets is always fixed for the same flow packets, > > > >>>i.e. they will be steered to the same receive queue. > > > >>> > > > >>>We add a VIRTIO_NET_HASH_TYPE_GRE_INNER bitmask in \field{hash_types}, > > > >>>which instructs the device to calculate the hash using the inner > > > >>>headers of GRE-encapsulated packets, and a VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_GRE > > > >>>value in \field{hash_tunnel} to report packet type when calculating > > > >>>hash over the inner header. > > > >>So I think we need a new feature bit for this to keep migration compatibility. > > > >> > > > >If we consider adding feature negotiation for this, it will be explained > > > >more below. > > > > > > > >>>Signed-off-by: Heng Qi <hengqi@linux.alibaba.com> > > > >>>Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com> > > > >>>--- > > > >>>v1: > > > >>> 1. Remove the patch for the bitmask fix. @Michael S. Tsirkin > > > >>> 2. Clarify some paragraphs. @Jason Wang > > > >>> 3. Add \field{hash_tunnel} and VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_GRE. @Yuri Benditovich > > > >>> > > > >>> content.tex | 140 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > >>> 1 file changed, 135 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > >>> > > > >>>diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex > > > >>>index e863709..fba0c7d 100644 > > > >>>--- a/content.tex > > > >>>+++ b/content.tex > > > >>>@@ -3095,7 +3095,7 @@ \subsection{Feature bits}\label{sec:Device Types / Network Device / Feature bits > > > >>> to several segments when each of these smaller packets has UDP header. > > > >>> > > > >>> \item[VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT(57)] Device can report per-packet hash > > > >>>- value and a type of calculated hash. > > > >>>+ value, a type of calculated hash and a tunnel packet type. > > > >>> > > > >>> \item[VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_HDRLEN(59)] Driver can provide the exact \field{hdr_len} > > > >>> value. Device benefits from knowing the exact header length. > > > >>>@@ -3386,7 +3386,8 @@ \subsection{Device Operation}\label{sec:Device Types / Network Device / Device O > > > >>> le16 num_buffers; > > > >>> le32 hash_value; (Only if VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT negotiated) > > > >>> le16 hash_report; (Only if VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT negotiated) > > > >>>- le16 padding_reserved; (Only if VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT negotiated) > > > >>>+ le8 hash_tunnel; (Only if VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT negotiated) > > > >>It's better not limit this to be tunnel only unless we limit the same > > > >>for hash_config. > > > >Maybe we can use the \field{hash_report_ex} instead of \field{hash_tunnel}ï > > > > > > > > > Probably. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Btw, this needs an independent fix. I wonder if we need a dedicated > > > >>feature bit VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT_EX and documenting that device > > > >>SHOULD offer HASH_REPORT_EX along with HASH_REPORT. Then we can do GRE > > > >>tunnel hash report on top? (Or doing GRE first and fix the mismatch on > > > >>top) > > > >> > > > >For this, we have the following ideas: > > > > > > > >1. Considering our actual business application scenarios, the current mainstream > > > > tunnel-encapsulated technologies are mainly GRE and VXLAN, so we are also > > > > working on VXLAN. > > > > > > > >2. To keep migration compatibility, we can add a VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_GRE_INNER > > > > feature bit (it depends on VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS). If it is negotiated, this > > > > means that the device calculates the hash based on the inner header of the > > > > GRE-encapsulated packet. We assume that the inner header in GRE is TCPv4, > > > > at this time \field{hash_types} needs to include > > > > (VIRTIO_NET_HASH_TYPE_GRE_INNER | VIRTIO_NET_HASH_TYPE_TCPv4). Besides, > > > > if VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT is also negotiated, then \field{hash_report} > > > > should be set to VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_TCPv4, and field \field{hash_report_ex} > > > > should be set to VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_GRE. > > > > > > > > > One question here, if I was not wrong, hash_report is sufficient for > > > GRE and VXLAN now. So that's why I think they should be indenepent > > > patch. > > > > > > > As discussed in https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-dev/202211/msg00064.html, > > \field{hash_report} is an integer rather than a bitmask. > > Ok, I see. > > > On the premise that > > VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_GRE_INNER is negotiated, assuming that the inner header of the GRE packet > > is TCPv4 and we only have \field{hash_report} instead of \field{hash_report_ex}, then we > > need to set VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_GRE(10) in \field{hash_report} along with > > VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_TCPv4(2). At this point \field{hash_report} should be (2+10=12). > > > > However, if the inner header of another VXLAN packet is IPv4, and VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_VXLAN > > is 11 (following VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_GRE(10), like below), then \field{hash_report} is > > (1+11=12). Then how does the driver distinguish that 12 belongs to the above which situation? > > > > Suppose the report type is as follows: > > \begin{lstlisting} > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_NONE 0 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_IPv4 1 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_TCPv4 2 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_UDPv4 3 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_IPv6 4 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_TCPv6 5 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_UDPv6 6 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_IPv6_EX 7 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_TCPv6_EX 8 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_UDPv6_EX 9 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_GRE 10 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_VXLAN 11 > > \end{lstlisting} > > > > So it seems more reasonable to include tunnel-related report types in \field{hash_report_ex}, > > Ok, I think I got this, if we go this way, hash_report_tunnel might be better. I agree. > In the long run, the mismatching behaviour of hash_config and > hash_report might end up more burden in the maintenance. I wonder if > it's worth it to make hash_report a bitmask that matches hash_config. > That seems to ease everything a lot. > > Thanks Maybe but I don't like making this work being blocked by this new idea - that's reworking this feature quite a lot. Do you have the time to work on this idea short term? -- MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]