[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] mbuf: add buffer offset field for flexible indirection

Yongseok Koh yskoh at mellanox.com
Wed Apr 11 19:18:35 CEST 2018


On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 05:02:50PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 04/11/2018 02:39 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > Hi Yongseok,
> > 
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Yongseok,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 05:12:06PM -0700, Yongseok Koh wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 10:26:15AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:50:03AM -0700, Yongseok Koh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > When attaching a mbuf, indirect mbuf has to point to start of buffer of
> > > > > > > > > direct mbuf. By adding buf_off field to rte_mbuf, this becomes more
> > > > > > > > > flexible. Indirect mbuf can point to any part of direct mbuf by calling
> > > > > > > > > rte_pktmbuf_attach_at().
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Possible use-cases could be:
> > > > > > > > > - If a packet has multiple layers of encapsulation, multiple indirect
> > > > > > > > >    buffers can reference different layers of the encapsulated packet.
> > > > > > > > > - A large direct mbuf can even contain multiple packets in series and
> > > > > > > > >    each packet can be referenced by multiple mbuf indirections.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yongseok Koh <yskoh at mellanox.com>
> > > > > > > > I think the current API is already able to do what you want.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 1/ Here is a mbuf m with its data
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >                 off
> > > > > > > >                 <-->
> > > > > > > >                        len
> > > > > > > >            +----+   <---------->
> > > > > > > >            |    |
> > > > > > > >          +-|----v----------------------+
> > > > > > > >          | |    -----------------------|
> > > > > > > > m       | buf  |    XXXXXXXXXXX      ||
> > > > > > > >          |      -----------------------|
> > > > > > > >          +-----------------------------+
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 2/ clone m:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >    c = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(pool);
> > > > > > > >    rte_pktmbuf_attach(c, m);
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >    Note that c has its own offset and length fields.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >                 off
> > > > > > > >                 <-->
> > > > > > > >                        len
> > > > > > > >            +----+   <---------->
> > > > > > > >            |    |
> > > > > > > >          +-|----v----------------------+
> > > > > > > >          | |    -----------------------|
> > > > > > > > m       | buf  |    XXXXXXXXXXX      ||
> > > > > > > >          |      -----------------------|
> > > > > > > >          +------^----------------------+
> > > > > > > >                 |
> > > > > > > >            +----+
> > > > > > > > indirect  |
> > > > > > > >          +-|---------------------------+
> > > > > > > >          | |    -----------------------|
> > > > > > > > c       | buf  |                     ||
> > > > > > > >          |      -----------------------|
> > > > > > > >          +-----------------------------+
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >                  off    len
> > > > > > > >                  <--><---------->
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 3/ remove some data from c without changing m
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >     rte_pktmbuf_adj(c, 10)   // at head
> > > > > > > >     rte_pktmbuf_trim(c, 10)  // at tail
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Please let me know if it fits your needs.
> > > > > > > No, it doesn't.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Trimming head and tail with the current APIs removes data and make the space
> > > > > > > available. Adjusting packet head means giving more headroom, not shifting the
> > > > > > > buffer itself. If m has two indirect mbufs (c1 and c2) and those are pointing to
> > > > > > > difference offsets in m,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > rte_pktmbuf_adj(c1, 10);
> > > > > > > rte_pktmbuf_adj(c2, 20);
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > then the owner of c2 regard the first (off+20)B as available headroom. If it
> > > > > > > wants to attach outer header, it will overwrite the headroom even though the
> > > > > > > owner of c1 is still accessing it. Instead, another mbuf (h1) for the outer
> > > > > > > header should be linked by h1->next = c2.
> > > > > > Yes, after these operations c1, c2 and m should become read-only. So, to
> > > > > > prepend headers, another mbuf has to be inserted before as you suggest. It
> > > > > > is possible to wrap this in a function rte_pktmbuf_clone_area(m, offset,
> > > > > > length) that will:
> > > > > >    - alloc and attach indirect mbuf for each segment of m that is
> > > > > >      in the range [offset : length+offset].
> > > > > >    - prepend an empty and writable mbuf for the headers
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If c1 and c2 are attached with shifting buffer address by adjusting buf_off,
> > > > > > > which actually shrink the headroom, this case can be properly handled.
> > > > > > What do you mean by properly handled?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, prepending data or adding data in the indirect mbuf won't override
> > > > > > the direct mbuf. But prepending data or adding data in the direct mbuf m
> > > > > > won't be protected.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  From an application point of view, indirect mbufs, or direct mbufs that
> > > > > > have refcnt != 1, should be both considered as read-only because they
> > > > > > may share their data. How an application can know if the data is shared
> > > > > > or not?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Maybe we need a flag to differentiate mbufs that are read-only
> > > > > > (something like SHARED_DATA, or simply READONLY). In your case, if my
> > > > > > understanding is correct, you want to have indirect mbufs with RW data.
> > > > > Agree that indirect mbuf must be treated as read-only, Then the current code is
> > > > > enough to handle that use-case.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > And another use-case (this is my actual use-case) is to make a large mbuf have
> > > > > > > multiple packets in series. AFAIK, this will also be helpful for some FPGA NICs
> > > > > > > because it transfers multiple packets to a single large buffer to reduce PCIe
> > > > > > > overhead for small packet traffic like the Multi-Packet Rx of mlx5 does.
> > > > > > > Otherwise, packets should be memcpy'd to regular mbufs one by one instead of
> > > > > > > indirect referencing.
> > > > But just to make HW to RX multiple packets into one mbuf,
> > > > data_off inside indirect mbuf should be enough, correct?
> > > Right. Current max buffer len of mbuf is 64kB (16bits) but it is enough for mlx5
> > > to reach to 100Gbps with 64B traffic (149Mpps). I made mlx5 HW put 16 packets in
> > > a buffer. So, it needs ~32kB buffer. Having more bits in length fields would be
> > > better but 16-bit is good enough to overcome the PCIe Gen3 bottleneck in order
> > > to saturate the network link.
> > There were few complains that 64KB max is a limitation for some use-cases.
> > I am not against increasing it, but I don't think we have free space on first cache-line for that
> > without another big rework of mbuf layout.
> > Considering that we need to increase size for buf_len, data_off, data_len, and probably priv_size too.
> > 
> > > > As I understand, what you'd like to achieve with this new field -
> > > > ability to manipulate packet boundaries after RX, probably at upper layer.
> > > > As Olivier pointed above, that doesn't sound as safe approach - as you have multiple
> > > > indirect mbufs trying to modify same direct buffer.
> > > I agree that there's an implication that indirect mbuf or mbuf having refcnt > 1
> > > is read-only. What that means, all the entities which own such mbufs have to be
> > > aware of that and keep the principle as DPDK can't enforce the rule and there
> > > can't be such sanity check. In this sense, HW doesn't violate it because the
> > > direct mbuf is injected to HW before indirection. When packets are written by
> > > HW, PMD attaches indirect mbufs to the direct mbuf and deliver those to
> > > application layer with freeing the original direct mbuf (decrement refcnt by 1).
> > > So, HW doesn't touch the direct buffer once it reaches to upper layer.
> > Yes, I understand that. But as I can see you introduced functions to adjust head and tail,
> > which implies that it should be possible by some entity (upper layer?) to manipulate these
> > indirect mbufs.
> > And we don't know how exactly it will be done.
> > 
> > > The direct buffer will be freed and get available for reuse when all the attached
> > > indirect mbufs are freed.
> > > 
> > > > Though if you really need to do that, why it can be achieved by updating buf_len and priv_size
> > > > Fields for indirect mbufs, straight after attach()?
> > > Good point.
> > > Actually that was my draft (Mellanox internal) version of this patch :-) But I
> > > had to consider a case where priv_size is really given by user. Even though it
> > > is less likely, but if original priv_size is quite big, it can't cover entire
> > > buf_len. For this, I had to increase priv_size to 32-bit but adding another
> > > 16bit field (buf_off) looked more plausible.
> > As I remember, we can't have mbufs bigger then 64K,
> > so priv_size + buf_len should be always less than 64K, correct?
> 
> It sounds like it is suggested to use/customize priv_size to limit indirect
> mbuf range in the direct one. It does not work from the box since priv_size is
> used to find out direct mbuf by indirect (see rte_mbuf_from_indirect()).

?? That's exactly why he suggested to use priv_size...

Thanks,
Yongseok


More information about the dev mailing list