| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 22:34:26 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] ptr_ring: linked list fallback
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:15:42AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年02月26日 09:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > So pointer rings work fine, but they have a problem: make them too small
> > and not enough entries fit. Make them too large and you start flushing
> > your cache and running out of memory.
> >
> > This is a new idea of mine: a ring backed by a linked list. Once you run
> > out of ring entries, instead of a drop you fall back on a list with a
> > common lock.
> >
> > Should work well for the case where the ring is typically sized
> > correctly, but will help address the fact that some user try to set e.g.
> > tx queue length to 1000000.
> >
> > In other words, the idea is that if a user sets a really huge TX queue
> > length, we allocate a ptr_ring which is smaller, and use the backup
> > linked list when necessary to provide the requested TX queue length
> > legitimately.
> >
> > My hope this will move us closer to direction where e.g. fw codel can
> > use ptr rings without locking at all. The API is still very rough, and
> > I really need to take a hard look at lock nesting.
> >
> > Compiled only, sending for early feedback/flames.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >
> > changes from v1:
> > - added clarifications by DaveM in the commit log
> > - build fixes
> >
> > include/linux/ptr_ring.h | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> > index d72b2e7..8aa8882 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> > @@ -31,11 +31,18 @@
> > #include <asm/errno.h>
> > #endif
> > +/* entries must start with the following structure */
> > +struct plist {
> > + struct plist *next;
> > + struct plist *last; /* only valid in the 1st entry */
> > +};
>
> So I wonder whether or not it's better to do this in e.g skb_array
> implementation. Then it can use its own prev/next field.
XDP uses ptr ring directly, doesn't it?
> > +
> > struct ptr_ring {
> > int producer ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> > spinlock_t producer_lock;
> > int consumer_head ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; /* next valid entry */
> > int consumer_tail; /* next entry to invalidate */
> > + struct plist *consumer_list;
> > spinlock_t consumer_lock;
> > /* Shared consumer/producer data */
> > /* Read-only by both the producer and the consumer */
> > @@ -120,10 +127,40 @@ static inline int __ptr_ring_produce(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr)
> > }
> > /*
> > - * Note: resize (below) nests producer lock within consumer lock, so if you
> > - * consume in interrupt or BH context, you must disable interrupts/BH when
> > - * calling this.
> > + * Note: resize API with the _fallback should be used when calling this.
> > */
> > +static inline int ptr_ring_produce_fallback(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + struct plist *p = ptr;
> > +
> > + p->next = NULL;
> > + p->last = p;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&r->producer_lock, flags);
> > + ret = __ptr_ring_produce(r, ptr);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + spin_lock(&r->consumer_lock);
> > + ret = __ptr_ring_produce(r, ptr);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + int producer = r->producer ? r->producer - 1 :
> > + r->size - 1;
> > + struct plist *first = r->queue[producer];
> > +
> > + BUG_ON(!first);
> > +
> > + first->last->next = p;
> > + first->last = p;
>
> I believe we still need a limitation on the total size of the queue.
OK, I'll implement that - it's pretty easy to do.
> Thanks
>
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&r->consumer_lock);
> > + }
> > +
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->producer_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline int ptr_ring_produce(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > @@ -135,6 +172,7 @@ static inline int ptr_ring_produce(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr)
> > return ret;
> > }
> > +
> > static inline int ptr_ring_produce_irq(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > @@ -359,6 +397,26 @@ static inline void *ptr_ring_consume_bh(struct ptr_ring *r)
> > return ptr;
> > }
> > +static inline void *ptr_ring_consume_fallback(struct ptr_ring *r)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + struct plist *ptr;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
> > + if (r->consumer_list) {
> > + ptr = r->consumer_list;
> > + r->consumer_list = ptr->next;
> > + } else {
> > + ptr = __ptr_ring_consume(r);
> > + if (ptr) {
> > + r->consumer_list = ptr->next;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + return ptr;
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched(struct ptr_ring *r,
> > void **array, int n)
> > {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists