[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aG49yaIcCPML9GsC@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 03:00:41 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: aeh@...a.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
edumazet@...gle.com, jhs@...atatu.com, kernel-team@...a.com,
Erik Lundgren <elundgren@...a.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Speed up lockdep_unregister_key() with
expedited RCU synchronization
Hello Waiman, Boqun,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 02:30:49AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> lockdep_unregister_key() is called from critical code paths, including
> sections where rtnl_lock() is held. For example, when replacing a qdisc
> in a network device, network egress traffic is disabled while
> __qdisc_destroy() is called for every network queue.
>
> If lockdep is enabled, __qdisc_destroy() calls lockdep_unregister_key(),
> which gets blocked waiting for synchronize_rcu() to complete.
>
> For example, a simple tc command to replace a qdisc could take 13
> seconds:
>
> # time /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1: mq
> real 0m13.195s
> user 0m0.001s
> sys 0m2.746s
>
> During this time, network egress is completely frozen while waiting for
> RCU synchronization.
>
> Use synchronize_rcu_expedited() instead to minimize the impact on
> critical operations like network connectivity changes.
>
> This improves 10x the function call to tc, when replacing the qdisc for
> a network card.
>
> # time /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1: mq
> real 0m1.789s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m1.613s
Can I have this landed as a workaround for the problem above, while
hazard pointers doesn't get merged?
This is affecting some systems that runs the Linus' upstream kernel with
some debug flags enabled, and I would like to have they unblocked.
Once hazard pointer lands, this will be reverted. Is this a fair
approach?
Thanks for your help,
--breno
Powered by blists - more mailing lists