[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1623846338-3671-1-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:25:38 +0800
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To: <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: <olteanv@...il.com>, <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>,
<andriin@...com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <weiwan@...gle.com>,
<cong.wang@...edance.com>, <ap420073@...il.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@...neuler.org>, <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
<linux-can@...r.kernel.org>, <jhs@...atatu.com>,
<xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
<andrii@...nel.org>, <kafai@...com>, <songliubraving@...com>,
<yhs@...com>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <jonas.bonn@...rounds.com>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <mzhivich@...mai.com>, <johunt@...mai.com>,
<albcamus@...il.com>, <kehuan.feng@...il.com>,
<a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>, <atenart@...nel.org>,
<alexander.duyck@...il.com>, <hdanton@...a.com>, <jgross@...e.com>,
<JKosina@...e.com>, <mkubecek@...e.cz>, <bjorn@...nel.org>,
<alobakin@...me>
Subject: [PATCH net] net: sched: add barrier to ensure correct ordering for lockless qdisc
The spin_trylock() is assumed to contain the implicit
barrier needed to ensure the correct ordering between
STATE_MISSED setting/clearing and STATE_MISSED checking
in commit a90c57f2cedd ("net: sched: fix packet stuck
problem for lockless qdisc").
But it turns out that spin_trylock() only has load-acquire
semantic, for strongly-ordered system(like x86), the compiler
barrier implicitly contained in spin_trylock() seems enough
to ensure the correct ordering. But for weakly-orderly system
(like arm64), the store-release semantic is needed to ensure
the correct ordering as clear_bit() and test_bit() is store
operation, see queued_spin_lock().
So add the explicit barrier to ensure the correct ordering
for the above case.
Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
---
The above ordering issue can easily cause out of order packet
problem when testing lockless qdisc bypass patchset [1] with
two iperf threads and one netdev queue in arm64 system.
1. https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/6/2/1417
---
include/net/sch_generic.h | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/net/sch_generic.h b/include/net/sch_generic.h
index 1e62551..5771030 100644
--- a/include/net/sch_generic.h
+++ b/include/net/sch_generic.h
@@ -163,6 +163,12 @@ static inline bool qdisc_run_begin(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
if (spin_trylock(&qdisc->seqlock))
goto nolock_empty;
+ /* Paired with smp_mb__after_atomic() to make sure
+ * STATE_MISSED checking is synchronized with clearing
+ * in pfifo_fast_dequeue().
+ */
+ smp_mb__before_atomic();
+
/* If the MISSED flag is set, it means other thread has
* set the MISSED flag before second spin_trylock(), so
* we can return false here to avoid multi cpus doing
@@ -180,6 +186,12 @@ static inline bool qdisc_run_begin(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
*/
set_bit(__QDISC_STATE_MISSED, &qdisc->state);
+ /* spin_trylock() only has load-acquire semantic, so use
+ * smp_mb__after_atomic() to ensure STATE_MISSED is set
+ * before doing the second spin_trylock().
+ */
+ smp_mb__after_atomic();
+
/* Retry again in case other CPU may not see the new flag
* after it releases the lock at the end of qdisc_run_end().
*/
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists