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: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:58:16 -0500
From: Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 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>, 
	Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, mark.rutland@....com, 
	Jesper Brouer <jesper@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 4:29 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 11:30:29AM -0600, Yan Zhai wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I was thinking in terms of something like this (untested):
>
>         #define rcu_softirq_qs_enable(enable_stmt, oldj) \
>         do { \
>                 if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && \
>                     time_after(oldj + HZ / 10, jiffies) { \
>                         rcu_softirq_qs(); \
>                         (oldj) = jiffies; \
>                 } \
>                 do  { enable_stmt; } while (0) \
>         } while (0)
>
> Then the call could be "rcu_softirq_qs_enable(local_bh_enable(), last_qs)",
> where last_qs is initialized by the caller to jiffies.
>
> The reason for putting "enable_stmt;" into anothor do-while loop is
> in case someone typos an "else" as the first part of the "enable_stmt"
> argument.
>
> Would that work?
>
Thanks Paul, just got time to continue this thread as I was
travelling. I think it is probably better to move
preempt_disable/enable into the macro to avoid the friction. And also
since this can affect NAPI thread, NAPI busy loop and XDP cpu map
thread (+Jesper who reminded me about this), let me send a v3 later to
cover all of those places.

Yan


>                                                         Thanx, Paul