From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: "Abhishek Chauhan (ABC)" <quic_abchauha@quicinc.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel@quicinc.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 3/3] net: Add additional bit to support userspace timestamp type
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:25:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fcdf6dc6-81ff-48b8-822b-80c097efc07d@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f28de1e7-4a9b-4a97-b4f9-723425725b58@quicinc.com>
On 4/10/24 1:25 PM, Abhishek Chauhan (ABC) wrote:
>>> @@ -830,6 +833,9 @@ enum skb_tstamp_type {
>>> * delivery_time in mono clock base (i.e. EDT). Otherwise, the
>>> * skb->tstamp has the (rcv) timestamp at ingress and
>>> * delivery_time at egress.
>>> + * delivery_time in mono clock base (i.e., EDT) or a clock base chosen
>>> + * by SO_TXTIME. If zero, skb->tstamp has the (rcv) timestamp at
>>> + * ingress.
>>> * @napi_id: id of the NAPI struct this skb came from
>>> * @sender_cpu: (aka @napi_id) source CPU in XPS
>>> * @alloc_cpu: CPU which did the skb allocation.
>>> @@ -960,7 +966,7 @@ struct sk_buff {
>>> /* private: */
>>> __u8 __mono_tc_offset[0];
>>> /* public: */
>>> - __u8 tstamp_type:1; /* See SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK */
>>> + __u8 tstamp_type:2; /* See SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK */
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_NET_XGRESS
>>> __u8 tc_at_ingress:1; /* See TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK */
The above "tstamp_type:2" change shifted the tc_at_ingress bit.
TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK needs to be adjusted.
>>> __u8 tc_skip_classify:1;
>>
>> With pahole, does this have an effect on sk_buff layout?
>>
> I think it does and it also impacts BPF testing. Hence in my cover letter i have mentioned that these
> changes will impact BPF. My level of expertise is very limited to BPF hence the reason for RFC.
> That being said i am actually trying to understand/learn BPF instructions to know things better.
> I think we need to also change the offset SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK and TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK
>
>
> #ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
> #define SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK (1 << 7) //Suspecting changes here too
> #define TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK (1 << 6) // and here
> #else
> #define SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK (1 << 0)
> #define TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK (1 << 1) (this might have to change to 1<<2 )
This should be (1 << 2) now. Similar adjustment for the big endian.
> #endif
> #define SKB_BF_MONO_TC_OFFSET offsetof(struct sk_buff, __mono_tc_offset)
>
> Also i suspect i change in /selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ctx_rewrite.c
ctx_rewrite.c tests the bpf ctx rewrite code. In this particular case, it tests
the bpf_convert_tstamp_read() and bpf_convert_tstamp_write() generate the
correct bpf instructions.
e.g. "w11 &= 3;" is testing the following in bpf_convert_tstamp_read():
*insn++ = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_AND, tmp_reg,
TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK | SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK);
The existing "TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK | SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK" is 0x3
and it should become 0x5 if my hand counts correctly.
The patch set cannot be applied to the bpf-next:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20240409210547.3815806-4-quic_abchauha@quicinc.com/
, so bpf CI cannot run to reproduce the issue.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-10 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-09 21:05 [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 0/3] Rename mono_delivery_time to Abhishek Chauhan
2024-04-09 21:05 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 1/3] net: Rename mono_delivery_time to tstamp_type for scalabilty Abhishek Chauhan
2024-04-10 15:30 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-10 19:04 ` Abhishek Chauhan (ABC)
2024-04-09 21:05 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 2/3] net: assign enum to skb->tstamp_type to distinguish between tstamp Abhishek Chauhan
2024-04-10 15:35 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-10 19:07 ` Abhishek Chauhan (ABC)
2024-04-09 21:05 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 3/3] net: Add additional bit to support userspace timestamp type Abhishek Chauhan
2024-04-10 15:42 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-10 20:25 ` Abhishek Chauhan (ABC)
2024-04-10 22:58 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-10 23:25 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2024-04-10 23:39 ` Abhishek Chauhan (ABC)
2024-04-12 21:14 ` Abhishek Chauhan (ABC)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fcdf6dc6-81ff-48b8-822b-80c097efc07d@linux.dev \
--to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=ahalaney@redhat.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kernel@quicinc.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=quic_abchauha@quicinc.com \
--cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®