Message-ID: <55831F0D.3040703@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:42:05 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Nørlund <pch@...bogen.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] ipv4: Lock-less per-packet multipath

On 06/17/2015 01:08 PM, Peter Nørlund wrote:
> The current multipath attempted to be quasi random, but in most cases it
> behaved just like a round robin balancing. This patch refactors the
> algorithm to be exactly that and in doing so, avoids the spin lock.
>
> The new design paves the way for hash-based multipath, replacing the
> modulo with thresholds, minimizing disruption in case of failing paths or
> route replacements.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Nørlund <pch@...bogen.com>
> ---
>   include/net/ip_fib.h     |   6 +--
>   net/ipv4/Kconfig         |   1 +
>   net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c | 116 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>   3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/ip_fib.h b/include/net/ip_fib.h
> index 54271ed..4be4f25 100644
> --- a/include/net/ip_fib.h
> +++ b/include/net/ip_fib.h
> @@ -76,8 +76,8 @@ struct fib_nh {
>   	unsigned int		nh_flags;
>   	unsigned char		nh_scope;
>   #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
> -	int			nh_weight;
> -	int			nh_power;
> +	int			nh_mp_weight;
> +	atomic_t		nh_mp_upper_bound;
>   #endif
>   #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_CLASSID
>   	__u32			nh_tclassid;
> @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ struct fib_info {
>   #define fib_advmss fib_metrics[RTAX_ADVMSS-1]
>   	int			fib_nhs;
>   #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
> -	int			fib_power;
> +	int			fib_mp_weight;
>   #endif
>   	struct rcu_head		rcu;
>   	struct fib_nh		fib_nh[0];

I could do without some of this renaming.  For example you could 
probably not bother with adding the _mp piece to the name.  That way we 
don't have to track all the nh_weight -> nh_mp_weight changes.   Also 
you could probably just use the name fib_weight since not including the 
_mp was already the convention for the multipath portions of the 
structure anyway.

This isn't really improving readability at all so I would say don't 
bother renaming it.

> diff --git a/net/ipv4/Kconfig b/net/ipv4/Kconfig
> index d83071d..cb91f67 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/Kconfig
> +++ b/net/ipv4/Kconfig
> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ config IP_MULTIPLE_TABLES
>   config IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
>   	bool "IP: equal cost multipath"
>   	depends on IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER
> +	select BITREVERSE
>   	help
>   	  Normally, the routing tables specify a single action to be taken in
>   	  a deterministic manner for a given packet. If you say Y here
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c b/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
> index 28ec3c1..8c8df80 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>
>   #include <asm/uaccess.h>
>   #include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/bitrev.h>
>   #include <linux/types.h>
>   #include <linux/kernel.h>
>   #include <linux/jiffies.h>
> @@ -57,7 +58,7 @@ static struct hlist_head fib_info_devhash[DEVINDEX_HASHSIZE];
>
>   #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
>
> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(fib_multipath_lock);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u8, fib_mp_rr_counter);
>
>   #define for_nexthops(fi) {						\
>   	int nhsel; const struct fib_nh *nh;				\
> @@ -261,7 +262,7 @@ static inline int nh_comp(const struct fib_info *fi, const struct fib_info *ofi)
>   		    nh->nh_gw  != onh->nh_gw ||
>   		    nh->nh_scope != onh->nh_scope ||
>   #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
> -		    nh->nh_weight != onh->nh_weight ||
> +		    nh->nh_mp_weight != onh->nh_mp_weight ||
>   #endif
>   #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_CLASSID
>   		    nh->nh_tclassid != onh->nh_tclassid ||
> @@ -449,6 +450,43 @@ static int fib_count_nexthops(struct rtnexthop *rtnh, int remaining)
>   	return remaining > 0 ? 0 : nhs;
>   }
>

This is a good example.  If we don't do the rename we don't have to 
review changes like the one above which just add extra overhead to the 
patch.

> +static void fib_rebalance(struct fib_info *fi)
> +{
> +	int factor;
> +	int total;
> +	int w;
> +
> +	if (fi->fib_nhs < 2)
> +		return;
> +
> +	total = 0;
> +	for_nexthops(fi) {
> +		if (!(nh->nh_flags & RTNH_F_DEAD))
> +			total += nh->nh_mp_weight;
> +	} endfor_nexthops(fi);
> +
> +	if (likely(total != 0)) {
> +		factor = DIV_ROUND_UP(total, 8388608);
> +		total /= factor;
> +	} else {
> +		factor = 1;
> +	}
> +

So where does the 8388608 value come from?  Is it just here to help 
restrict the upper_bound to a u8 value?

> +	w = 0;
> +	change_nexthops(fi) {
> +		int upper_bound;
> +
> +		if (nexthop_nh->nh_flags & RTNH_F_DEAD) {
> +			upper_bound = -1;
> +		} else {
> +			w += nexthop_nh->nh_mp_weight / factor;
> +			upper_bound = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(256 * w, total);
> +		}

This is doing some confusing stuff.  I assume the whole point is to get 
the value to convert the upper_bound into a u8 value based on the weight 
where you end with 256 as the last value, do I have that right?

I'm not really sure that is the best way to go from a code standpoint 
since fib_nhs is an int which technically means we could support more 
than 256 next hops for a given route.

Also I assume that it is safe to divide by total because the assumption 
is that if one or more routes are not dead then total has a non-zero 
value, do I have that right?  If so what is the point of setting the 
factor to 1 above, unless you are just hacking around a divide by 0 error.

Maybe what you should do above is simply return if total == 0 since it 
doesn't look like you can safely update anything otherwise.

> +
> +		atomic_set(&nexthop_nh->nh_mp_upper_bound, upper_bound);
> +	} endfor_nexthops(fi);
> +}
> +
>   static int fib_get_nhs(struct fib_info *fi, struct rtnexthop *rtnh,
>   		       int remaining, struct fib_config *cfg)
>   {
> @@ -461,7 +499,7 @@ static int fib_get_nhs(struct fib_info *fi, struct rtnexthop *rtnh,
>   		nexthop_nh->nh_flags =
>   			(cfg->fc_flags & ~0xFF) | rtnh->rtnh_flags;
>   		nexthop_nh->nh_oif = rtnh->rtnh_ifindex;
> -		nexthop_nh->nh_weight = rtnh->rtnh_hops + 1;
> +		nexthop_nh->nh_mp_weight = rtnh->rtnh_hops + 1;
>
>   		attrlen = rtnh_attrlen(rtnh);
>   		if (attrlen > 0) {
> @@ -884,7 +922,7 @@ struct fib_info *fib_create_info(struct fib_config *cfg)
>   			fi->fib_net->ipv4.fib_num_tclassid_users++;
>   #endif
>   #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
> -		nh->nh_weight = 1;
> +		nh->nh_mp_weight = 1;
>   #endif
>   	}
>

More unnecessary rename noise.

> @@ -936,8 +974,15 @@ struct fib_info *fib_create_info(struct fib_config *cfg)
>
>   	change_nexthops(fi) {
>   		fib_info_update_nh_saddr(net, nexthop_nh);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
> +		fi->fib_mp_weight += nexthop_nh->nh_mp_weight;
> +#endif
>   	} endfor_nexthops(fi)
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
> +	fib_rebalance(fi);
> +#endif
> +
>   link_it:
>   	ofi = fib_find_info(fi);
>   	if (ofi) {
> @@ -1050,7 +1095,7 @@ int fib_dump_info(struct sk_buff *skb, u32 portid, u32 seq, int event,
>   				goto nla_put_failure;
>
>   			rtnh->rtnh_flags = nh->nh_flags & 0xFF;
> -			rtnh->rtnh_hops = nh->nh_weight - 1;
> +			rtnh->rtnh_hops = nh->nh_mp_weight - 1;
>   			rtnh->rtnh_ifindex = nh->nh_oif;
>
>   			if (nh->nh_gw &&
> @@ -1130,12 +1175,6 @@ int fib_sync_down_dev(struct net_device *dev, int force)
>   			else if (nexthop_nh->nh_dev == dev &&
>   				 nexthop_nh->nh_scope != scope) {
>   				nexthop_nh->nh_flags |= RTNH_F_DEAD;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
> -				spin_lock_bh(&fib_multipath_lock);
> -				fi->fib_power -= nexthop_nh->nh_power;
> -				nexthop_nh->nh_power = 0;
> -				spin_unlock_bh(&fib_multipath_lock);
> -#endif
>   				dead++;
>   			}
>   #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
> @@ -1149,6 +1188,10 @@ int fib_sync_down_dev(struct net_device *dev, int force)
>   			fi->fib_flags |= RTNH_F_DEAD;
>   			ret++;
>   		}
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
> +		fib_rebalance(fi);
> +#endif
>   	}
>
>   	return ret;
> @@ -1254,16 +1297,15 @@ int fib_sync_up(struct net_device *dev)
>   			    !__in_dev_get_rtnl(dev))
>   				continue;
>   			alive++;
> -			spin_lock_bh(&fib_multipath_lock);
> -			nexthop_nh->nh_power = 0;
>   			nexthop_nh->nh_flags &= ~RTNH_F_DEAD;
> -			spin_unlock_bh(&fib_multipath_lock);
>   		} endfor_nexthops(fi)
>
>   		if (alive > 0) {
>   			fi->fib_flags &= ~RTNH_F_DEAD;
>   			ret++;
>   		}
> +
> +		fib_rebalance(fi);
>   	}
>
>   	return ret;
> @@ -1276,49 +1318,19 @@ int fib_sync_up(struct net_device *dev)
>   void fib_select_multipath(struct fib_result *res)
>   {
>   	struct fib_info *fi = res->fi;
> -	int w;
> -
> -	spin_lock_bh(&fib_multipath_lock);
> -	if (fi->fib_power <= 0) {
> -		int power = 0;
> -		change_nexthops(fi) {
> -			if (!(nexthop_nh->nh_flags & RTNH_F_DEAD)) {
> -				power += nexthop_nh->nh_weight;
> -				nexthop_nh->nh_power = nexthop_nh->nh_weight;
> -			}
> -		} endfor_nexthops(fi);
> -		fi->fib_power = power;
> -		if (power <= 0) {
> -			spin_unlock_bh(&fib_multipath_lock);
> -			/* Race condition: route has just become dead. */
> -			res->nh_sel = 0;
> -			return;
> -		}
> -	}
> +	u8 w;
>
> +	w = bitrev8(this_cpu_inc_return(fib_mp_rr_counter));
>
> -	/* w should be random number [0..fi->fib_power-1],
> -	 * it is pretty bad approximation.
> -	 */
> -
> -	w = jiffies % fi->fib_power;
> +	for_nexthops(fi) {
> +		if (w >= atomic_read(&nh->nh_mp_upper_bound))
> +			continue;
>
> -	change_nexthops(fi) {
> -		if (!(nexthop_nh->nh_flags & RTNH_F_DEAD) &&
> -		    nexthop_nh->nh_power) {
> -			w -= nexthop_nh->nh_power;
> -			if (w <= 0) {
> -				nexthop_nh->nh_power--;
> -				fi->fib_power--;
> -				res->nh_sel = nhsel;
> -				spin_unlock_bh(&fib_multipath_lock);
> -				return;
> -			}
> -		}
> +		res->nh_sel = nhsel;
> +		return;
>   	} endfor_nexthops(fi);
>
> -	/* Race condition: route has just become dead. */
> +	/* Race condition: route has just become dead */
>   	res->nh_sel = 0;
> -	spin_unlock_bh(&fib_multipath_lock);
>   }
>   #endif
>

Instead of doing bitrev8 why not just hash jiffies since that is 
essentially what you are doing with this counter anyway.  You could 
probably even look at converting from a u8 to something like a u32 which 
would give you a more pseudo random distribution.
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists