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:   Tue, 28 May 2019 09:48:22 +0800
From:   Yunsheng Lin <>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <>
CC:     <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: link_watch: prevent starvation when
 processing linkwatch wq

On 2019/5/28 9:17, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2019 09:04:18 +0800
> Yunsheng Lin <> wrote:
>> On 2019/5/27 22:58, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 May 2019 09:47:54 +0800
>>> Yunsheng Lin <> wrote:
>>>> When user has configured a large number of virtual netdev, such
>>>> as 4K vlans, the carrier on/off operation of the real netdev
>>>> will also cause it's virtual netdev's link state to be processed
>>>> in linkwatch. Currently, the processing is done in a work queue,
>>>> which may cause worker starvation problem for other work queue.
>>>> This patch releases the cpu when link watch worker has processed
>>>> a fixed number of netdev' link watch event, and schedule the
>>>> work queue again when there is still link watch event remaining.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <>  
>>> Why not put link watch in its own workqueue so it is scheduled
>>> separately from the system workqueue?  
>> From testing and debuging, the workqueue runs on the cpu where the
>> workqueue is schedule when using normal workqueue, even using its
>> own workqueue instead of system workqueue. So if the cpu is busy
>> processing the linkwatch event, it is not able to process other
>> workqueue' work when the workqueue is scheduled on the same cpu.
>> Using unbound workqueue may solve the cpu starvation problem.
>> But the __linkwatch_run_queue is called with rtnl_lock, so if it
>> takes a lot time to process, other need to take the rtnl_lock may
>> not be able to move forward.
> Agree with the starvation issue. My cocern is that large number of
> events that end up being delayed would impact things that are actually
> watching for link events (like routing daemons).

Agreed. I am not familiar with above use cases, it would be very helpful
if someone can help testing the impact of above use case.

> It probably would be not accepted to do rtnl_unlock/sched_yield/rtnl_lock
> in the loop, but that is another alternative.

Yes. But seems not very efficient to do rtnl_unlock/sched_yield/rtnl_lock
for very linkwatch_do_dev.

> .

Powered by blists - more mailing lists