netdev - Re: [RFC Patch net-next] net_sched: make classifying lockless on ingress

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:	Sat, 21 Dec 2013 15:09:23 -0800
From:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
CC:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next] net_sched: make classifying lockless on
 ingress

On 12/21/2013 02:11 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 12/20/13 21:32, John Fastabend wrote:
>
>> If you only steal the prequeue piece then you don't solve the lock
>> contention part so I don't think it helps. At which point I suspect
>> you might as well use one of the existing qdiscs not designed for
>> multiqueue nics.
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
>
>> Yeah well I imagined I would write a rate limiting qdisc to use
>> this infrastructure. Jamal hinted at using a systolic processes
>> for this. But I work on this when I have time and have been
>> busy the last few months with other things unfortunately.
>
> The main problem is you cant avoid locks once you have sharing across
> multiple processors. You could try to improve certain things, but
> you'll be doing that at the expense of certain use cases; and for
> a general purpose OS, it gets hard.
> a) netdev: All qdiscs are attached to a netdev. netdevs are shared
> across cpus that is if you want the goodies they come with.
> If we can ease that, then we may improve the parallelization.
> At one point, in a discussion with Eric, it seemed he was heading
> towards a per-netdev-ingress-per-cpu (sort of what  multiqueu does for
> transmit). Then you can make certain things like netdev stats loosely
> synchronous and rcu would make a lot of sense.

I solved this by making them per CPU and synchronizing when I hit
an operation that required sync'ing them. Going forward if folks
have the time to write SMP aware qdisc's that work with eventually
consistent counters that would be great.

You could make this fully generic by having a classifer to match
the cpu id and then forwarding the skb to a qdisc based on the
cpu_id.

Then per-netdev-ingress-per-cpu is really just a configured policy.
If we wanted to make it the default configuration that would be
fine.

> b) graphs of flows and actions are shareable across netdevs and
> cpus. Just choose not to share and you can optimize your use case
> (at the expense of missing out the sharing features). IOW, this becomes
> a config option.
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


-- 
John Fastabend         Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html