Message-ID: <20160829155558.GA13971@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:55:59 -0700
From:   Brenden Blanco <bblanco@...mgrid.com>
To:     Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx4_en: protect ring->xdp_prog with rcu_read_lock

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 05:59:26PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> Hi Brenden,
> 
> The solution direction should be XDP specific that does not hurt the
> regular flow.
An rcu_read_lock is _already_ taken for _every_ packet. This is 1/64th of
that.
> 
> On 26/08/2016 11:38 PM, Brenden Blanco wrote:
> >Depending on the preempt mode, the bpf_prog stored in xdp_prog may be
> >freed despite the use of call_rcu inside bpf_prog_put. The situation is
> >possible when running in PREEMPT_RCU=y mode, for instance, since the rcu
> >callback for destroying the bpf prog can run even during the bh handling
> >in the mlx4 rx path.
> >
> >Several options were considered before this patch was settled on:
> >
> >Add a napi_synchronize loop in mlx4_xdp_set, which would occur after all
> >of the rings are updated with the new program.
> >This approach has the disadvantage that as the number of rings
> >increases, the speed of udpate will slow down significantly due to
> >napi_synchronize's msleep(1).
> I prefer this option as it doesn't hurt the data path. A delay in a
> control command can be tolerated.
> >Add a new rcu_head in bpf_prog_aux, to be used by a new bpf_prog_put_bh.
> >The action of the bpf_prog_put_bh would be to then call bpf_prog_put
> >later. Those drivers that consume a bpf prog in a bh context (like mlx4)
> >would then use the bpf_prog_put_bh instead when the ring is up. This has
> >the problem of complexity, in maintaining proper refcnts and rcu lists,
> >and would likely be harder to review. In addition, this approach to
> >freeing must be exclusive with other frees of the bpf prog, for instance
> >a _bh prog must not be referenced from a prog array that is consumed by
> >a non-_bh prog.
> >
> >The placement of rcu_read_lock in this patch is functionally the same as
> >putting an rcu_read_lock in napi_poll. Actually doing so could be a
> >potentially controversial change, but would bring the implementation in
> >line with sk_busy_loop (though of course the nature of those two paths
> >is substantially different), and would also avoid future copy/paste
> >problems with future supporters of XDP. Still, this patch does not take
> >that opinionated option.
> So you decided to add a lock for all non-XDP flows, which are 99% of
> the cases.
> We should avoid this.
The whole point of rcu_read_lock architecture is to be taken in the fast
path. There won't be a performance impact from this patch.
> >
> >Testing was done with kernels in either PREEMPT_RCU=y or
> >CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y+PREEMPT_RCU=n modes, with neither exhibiting
> >any drawback. With PREEMPT_RCU=n, the extra call to rcu_read_lock did
> >not show up in the perf report whatsoever, and with PREEMPT_RCU=y the
> >overhead of rcu_read_lock (according to perf) was the same before/after.
> >In the rx path, rcu_read_lock is eventually called for every packet
> >from netif_receive_skb_internal, so the napi poll call's rcu_read_lock
> >is easily amortized.
> For now, I don't agree with this fix.
> Let me think about the options you suggested.
> I also need to do my perf tests.
> 
> Regards,
> Tariq
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists