linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 11:30:29 -0600
From: Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, 
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, Coco Li <lixiaoyan@...gle.com>, Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>, 
	Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>, Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@...udflare.com, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, 
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll

Hi Eric,

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 2:30 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> I could not see the reason for 1sec (HZ) delays.
>
> Would calling rcu_softirq_qs() every ~10ms instead be a serious issue ?
>
The trouble scenarios are often when we need to detach an ad-hoc BPF
tracing program, or restart a monitoring service. It is fine as long
as they do not block for 10+ seconds or even completely stall under
heavy traffic. Raising a QS every few ms or HZ both work in such
cases.

> In anycase, if this all about rcu_tasks, I would prefer using a macro
> defined in kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> instead of having a hidden constant in a networking core function.

Paul E. McKenney was suggesting either current form or

         local_bh_enable();
         if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
                 rcu_softirq_qs_enable(local_bh_enable());
         else
                 local_bh_enable();

With an interval it might have to be
"rcu_softirq_qs_enable(local_bh_enable(), &next_qs);" to avoid an
unnecessary extern/static var. Will it make more sense to you?

thanks

>
> Thanks.