[ovs-dev] [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: More fine-grained support for encapsulated GSO features

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 02:31:44PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:53:42PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 11:16:40AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:19:51AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > >> >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 04:03:21PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> > >> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 02:00:19PM -0700, Joseph Gasparakis wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> Any particular reason to introduce skb->encapsulation_features instead of
> > >> >> >> >> using the existing skb->encapsulation? Also I don't see it used in your
> > >> >> >> >> second patch either.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > My reasoning is that skb->encapsulation seems to alter the behaviour of
> > >> >> >> > many different locations and I'm not sure that any of them, other than the
> > >> >> >> > one in dev_hard_start_xmit() make sense for MPLS.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> The problem is the meaning of skb->encapsulation isn't really defined
> > >> >> >> clearly and I'm certain that the current implementation is not going
> > >> >> >> to work in the future. Depending on your perspective, vlans, MPLS,
> > >> >> >> tunnels, etc. can all be considered forms of encapsulation but clearly
> > >> >> >> there are many NICs that have different capabilities across those. I
> > >> >> >> believe the intention here was really to describe L3 tunnels as
> > >> >> >> encapsulation, in which case MPLS really shouldn't be using this
> > >> >> >> mechanism at all.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Now there is some overlap, especially today since most currently
> > >> >> >> shipping silicon wasn't designed to support tunnels and so is using
> > >> >> >> some form of offset based offloads. In that case, all forms of
> > >> >> >> encapsulation are pretty similar. However, in the future that won't be
> > >> >> >> the case as support for specific protocols is implemented for higher
> > >> >> >> performance and richer support. When that happens, not only will MPLS
> > >> >> >> and tunnels have different capabilities but various forms tunnels
> > >> >> >> might as well.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Wouldn't be possible to describe those differences using,
> > >> >> > dev->hw_enc_features? I assumed that was its purpose.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If there truly are differences between the offload capabilities of
> > >> >> MPLS and L3 tunnels then no, it's not possible, because it's a single
> > >> >> field. It's certainly not a valid assumption that a NIC that can do
> > >> >> TSO over GRE can also do it over MPLS.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> However, it's unlikely that there are truly significant differences
> > >> >> between various encapsulation formats on a per-feature basis. I think
> > >> >> what we need to do is separate out the ability to understand the
> > >> >> headers from the capabilities so you have two fields: header (none,
> > >> >> VLAN, QinQ, MPLS, VXLAN, GRE, etc.) and feature (checksum, SG, TSO,
> > >> >> etc.) rather than the product of each. Otherwise, we end up with a ton
> > >> >> of different combinations.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm not quite sure that I follow.
> > >> >
> > >> > Is your idea to replace skb->encapsulation (a single bit) with
> > >> > a field that corresponds to the outer-most (encapsulation) header in use
> > >> > and has bits for none, VLAN, QinQ, MPLS, VXLAN, GRE, etc...?
> > >>
> > >> No, I'm talking about netdev features. You can already tell the
> > >> encapsulation type of a packet by looking at the EtherType.
> > >
> > > Now I am completely confused about what are the two fields that you
> > > refer to in your previous email.
> > 
> > I have always been referring to the netdev features for various
> > protocol types. This is because considering MPLS as a form of
> > encapsulation for the purpose of offloads buckets too many protocols
> > into the same set and NICs will have varying features for those.
> > Trying to avoid this by having a bit for offloadable encapsulations is
> > just going to be very confusing and not very future proof.

I understand your point regarding a magic bit for encapsulation not
being particularly future-proof. I agree that it is reasonable to expect
that a NIC may support an offload for one of the growing list of
supported encapsulation protocols and not another.

However, as tedious as this may be, I am rather confused about what your
proposal above is.

> > > In regards to looking ath the ethernet type:
> > >
> > > One of the tricky parts of MPLS is that the packet itself does not contain
> > > the ethernet type or any other way of knowing the type of the inner-packet.
> > > Information that is needed for GSO.
> > 
> > I'm aware of that. However, you were referring to the type of
> > encapsulation. It is easy to determine that a packet is MPLS.
> > 
> > > My proposal to get around this is to leave skb->protocol as the
> > > original, in the case we are interested in non-MPLS, ethernet type.
> > 
> > At the very least, this is not consistent with how it is currently
> > handled (for example, with VLANs) and seems difficult to do properly.
> > However, I have not seen any further analysis since the last time that
> > we discussed this.
> 
> Unfortunately my efforts to solicit feedback from others regarding
> that have not been successful.

An idea I have for the treatment of skb->protocol and friends is to add
skb->inner_protocol.  It could be set to the inner protocol, if known, for
protocols such as MPLS which don't include that information in the packet.
It would allow skb->protocol to be set to the MPLS ethernet type
corresponding to the ethernet type of the packet.

>From here I see two options:

1.  Offloads could be registered for MPLS unicast and multicast.  And the
    registered MPLS GSO segmentation call-back could set and restore
    skb->protocol before and after calling skb_mac_gso_segment().

    The MPLS GSO segmentation callback could also calculate features
    to pass to skb_mac_gso_segment() by some means.

2. Teach skb_network_protocol() about skb->inner_protocol.
   And most likely teach netif_skb_features() about
   skb->protocol == ETH_P_MPLS*.

   I'm not entirely sure how to avoid overhead for non-MPLS packets using
   this approach.

I believe the above could be achieved without using skb->encapsulation
in newly added code.

Your features proposal above not withstanding, in the current scheme of
things, it would seem that it would be appropriate to add SKB_GSO_GRE -
currently not supported by any hardware - and set skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type
= SKB_GSO_GRE in the datapath. I think this should be sufficient to trigger
a call to skb_mac_gso_segment() in dev_hard_start_xmit().