[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <455c39d3-302e-68ab-3812-112c48ed48c2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 08:51:54 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emlot.net,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: User per-cpu 64-bit statistics
On 08/03/2017 10:36 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 21:33 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> During testing with a background iperf pushing 1Gbit/sec worth of
>> traffic and having both ifconfig and ethtool collect statistics, we
>> could see quite frequent deadlocks. Convert the often accessed DSA slave
>> network devices statistics to per-cpu 64-bit statistics to remove these
>> deadlocks and provide fast efficient statistics updates.
>>
>
> This seems to be a bug fix, it would be nice to get a proper tag like :
>
> Fixes: f613ed665bb3 ("net: dsa: Add support for 64-bit statistics")
Right, should have been added, thanks!
>
> Problem here is that if multiple cpus can call dsa_switch_rcv() at the
> same time, then u64_stats_update_begin() contract is not respected.
This is really where I struggled understanding what is wrong in the
non-per CPU version, my understanding is that we have:
- writers for xmit executes in process context
- writers for receive executes from NAPI (from the DSA's master network
device through it's own NAPI doing netif_receive_skb -> netdev_uses_dsa
-> netif_receive_skb)
readers should all execute in process context. The test scenario that
led to a deadlock involved running iperf in the background, having a
while loop with both ifconfig and ethtool reading stats, and somehow
when iperf exited, either reader would just be locked. So I guess this
leaves us with the two writers not being mutually excluded then, right?
>
> include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h states :
>
> * Usage :
> *
> * Stats producer (writer) should use following template granted it already got
> * an exclusive access to counters (a lock is already taken, or per cpu
> * data is used [in a non preemptable context])
> *
> * spin_lock_bh(...) or other synchronization to get exclusive access
> * ...
> * u64_stats_update_begin(&stats->syncp);
>
>
>
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists