On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 09:01:27AM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 16-12-14 05:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:04:58PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> >> On 16-12-08 01:36 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:11:11PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> >>>> This adds support for dynamically setting the LRO feature flag. The
> >>>> message to control guest features in the backend uses the
> >>>> CTRL_GUEST_OFFLOADS msg type.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.r.fastab...@intel.com>
> >>>> ---
>
> [...]
>
> >>>>
> >>>> static void virtnet_config_changed_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >>>> @@ -1815,6 +1846,12 @@ static int virtnet_probe(struct virtio_device
> >>>> *vdev)
> >>>> if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM))
> >>>> dev->features |= NETIF_F_RXCSUM;
> >>>>
> >>>> + if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO4) &&
> >>>> + virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO6)) {
> >>>> + dev->features |= NETIF_F_LRO;
> >>>> + dev->hw_features |= NETIF_F_LRO;
> >>>
> >>> So the issue is I think that the virtio "LRO" isn't really
> >>> LRO, it's typically just GRO forwarded to guests.
> >>> So these are easily re-split along MTU boundaries,
> >>> which makes it ok to forward these across bridges.
> >>>
> >>> It's not nice that we don't document this in the spec,
> >>> but it's the reality and people rely on this.
> >>>
> >>> For now, how about doing a custom thing and just disable/enable
> >>> it as XDP is attached/detached?
> >>
> >> The annoying part about doing this is ethtool will say that it is fixed
> >> yet it will be changed by seemingly unrelated operation. I'm not sure I
> >> like the idea to start automatically configuring the link via xdp_set.
> >
> > I really don't like the idea of dropping performance
> > by a factor of 3 for people bridging two virtio net
> > interfaces.
> >
> > So how about a simple approach for now, just disable
> > XDP if GUEST_TSO is enabled?
> >
> > We can discuss better approaches in next version.
> >
>
> So the proposal is to add a check in XDP setup so that
>
> if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO{4|6})
> return -ENOPSUPP;
>
> Or whatever is the most appropriate return code? Then we can
> disable TSO via qemu-system with guest_tso4=off,guest_tso6=off for
> XDP use cases.
Right. It's a start.
> Sounds like a reasonable start to me. I'll make the change should this
> go through DaveMs net-next tree or do you want it on virtio tree? Either
> is fine with me.
>
> Thanks,
> John
I think I'll merge it because I'm tweaking RX processing too,
and this will likely conflict.
--
MST
