Message-ID: <20201210015319.e6njlcwuhfpre3bn@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:53:19 -0800
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>
CC:     <ast@...nel.org>, <benh@...zon.com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
        <kuni1840@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 bpf-next 03/11] tcp: Migrate
 TCP_ESTABLISHED/TCP_SYN_RECV sockets in accept queues.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 01:57:19AM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
[ ... ]

> > > > I think it is a bit complex to pass the new listener from
> > > > reuseport_detach_sock() to inet_csk_listen_stop().
> > > > 
> > > > __tcp_close/tcp_disconnect/tcp_abort
> > > >  |-tcp_set_state
> > > >  |  |-unhash
> > > >  |     |-reuseport_detach_sock (return nsk)
> > > >  |-inet_csk_listen_stop
> > > Picking the new listener does not have to be done in
> > > reuseport_detach_sock().
> > > 
> > > IIUC, it is done there only because it prefers to pick
> > > the last sk from socks[] when bpf prog is not attached.
> > > This seems to get into the way of exploring other potential
> > > implementation options.
> > 
> > Yes.
> > This is just idea, but we can reserve the last index of socks[] to hold the
> > last 'moved' socket in reuseport_detach_sock() and use it in
> > inet_csk_listen_stop().
> > 
> > 
> > > Merging the discussion on the last socks[] pick from another thread:
> > > >
> > > > I think most applications start new listeners before closing listeners, in
> > > > this case, selecting the moved socket as the new listener works well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > That said, if it is still desired to do a random pick by kernel when
> > > > > there is no bpf prog, it probably makes sense to guard it in a sysctl as
> > > > > suggested in another reply.  To keep it simple, I would also keep this
> > > > > kernel-pick consistent instead of request socket is doing something
> > > > > different from the unhash path.
> > > >
> > > > Then, is this way better to keep kernel-pick consistent?
> > > >
> > > >   1. call reuseport_select_migrated_sock() without sk_hash from any path
> > > >   2. generate a random number in reuseport_select_migrated_sock()
> > > >   3. pass it to __reuseport_select_sock() only for select-by-hash
> > > >   (4. pass 0 as sk_hash to bpf_run_sk_reuseport not to use it)
> > > >   5. do migration per queue in inet_csk_listen_stop() or per request in
> > > >      receive path.
> > > >
> > > > I understand it is beautiful to keep consistensy, but also think
> > > > the kernel-pick with heuristic performs better than random-pick.
> > > I think discussing the best kernel pick without explicit user input
> > > is going to be a dead end. There is always a case that
> > > makes this heuristic (or guess) fail.  e.g. what if multiple
> > > sk(s) being closed are always the last one in the socks[]?
> > > all their child sk(s) will then be piled up at one listen sk
> > > because the last socks[] is always picked?
> > 
> > There can be such a case, but it means the newly listened sockets are
> > closed earlier than old ones.
> > 
> > 
> > > Lets assume the last socks[] is indeed the best for all cases.  Then why
> > > the in-progress req don't pick it this way?  I feel the implementation
> > > is doing what is convenient at that point.  And that is fine, I think
> > 
> > In this patchset, I originally assumed four things:
> > 
> >   migration should be done
> >     (i)   from old to new
> >     (ii)  to redistribute requests evenly as possible
> >     (iii) to keep the order of requests in the queue
> >           (resulting in splicing queues)
> >     (iv)  in O(1) for scalability
> >           (resulting in fix-up rsk_listener approach)
> > 
> > I selected the last socket in unhash path to satisfy above four because the
> > last socket changes at every close() syscall if application closes from
> > older socket.
> > 
> > But in receiving ACK or retransmitting SYN+ACK, we cannot get the last
> > 'moved' socket. Even if we reserve the last 'moved' socket in the last
> > index by the idea above, we cannot sure the last socket is changed after
> > close() for each req->listener. For example, we have listeners A, B, C, and
> > D, and then call close(A) and close(B), and receive the final ACKs for A
> > and B, then both of them are assigned to C. In this case, A for D and B for
> > C is desired. So, selecting the last socket in socks[] for incoming
> > requests cannnot realize (ii).
> > 
> > This is why I selected the last moved socket in unhash path and a random
> > listener in receive path.
> > 
> > 
> > > for kernel-pick, it should just go for simplicity and stay with
> > > the random(/hash) pick instead of pretending the kernel knows the
> > > application must operate in a certain way.  It is fine
> > > that the pick was wrong, the kernel will eventually move the
> > > childs/reqs to the survived listen sk.
> > 
> > Exactly. Also the heuristic way is not fair for every application.
> > 
> > After reading below idea (migrated_sk), I think random-pick is better
> > at simplicity and passing each sk.
> > 
> > 
> > > [ I still think the kernel should not even pick if
> > >   there is no bpf prog to instruct how to pick
> > >   but I am fine as long as there is a sysctl to
> > >   guard this. ]
> > 
> > Unless different applications listen on the same port, random-pick can save
> > connections which would be aborted. So, I would add a sysctl to do
> > migration when no eBPF prog is attached.
> > 
> > 
> > > I would rather focus on ensuring the bpf prog getting what it
> > > needs to make the migration pick.  A few things
> > > I would like to discuss and explore:
> > > > If we splice requests like this, we do not need double lock?
> > > > 
> > > >   1. lock the accept queue of the old listener
> > > >   2. unlink all requests and decrement refcount
> > > >   3. unlock
> > > >   4. update all requests with new listener
> > > I guess updating rsk_listener can be done without acquiring
> > > the lock in (5) below is because it is done under the
> > > listening_hash's bucket lock (and also the global reuseport_lock) so
> > > that the new listener will stay in TCP_LISTEN state?
> > 
> > If we do migration in inet_unhash(), the lock is held, but it is not held
> > in inet_csk_listen_stop().
> > 
> > 
> > > I am not sure iterating the queue under these
> > > locks is a very good thing to do though.  The queue may not be
> > > very long in usual setup but still let see
> > > if that can be avoided.
> > 
> > I agree, lock should not be held long.
> > 
> > 
> > > Do you think the iteration can be done without holding
> > > bucket lock and the global reuseport_lock?  inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add()
> > > is taking the rskq_lock and then check for TCP_LISTEN.  May be
> > > something similar can be done also?
> > 
> > I think either one is necessary at least, so if the sk_state of selected
> > listener is TCP_CLOSE (this is mostly by random-pick of kernel), then we
> > have to fall back to call inet_child_forget().
> > 
> > 
> > > While doing BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_MIGRATE_REQUEST,
> > > the bpf prog can pick per req and have the sk_hash.
> > > However, while doing BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_MIGRATE_QUEUE,
> > > the bpf prog currently does not have a chance to
> > > pick individually for each req/child on the queue.
> > > Since it is iterating the queue anyway, does it make
> > > sense to also call the bpf to pick for each req/child
> > > in the queue?  It then can pass sk_hash (from child->sk_hash?)
> > > to the bpf prog also instead of current 0.  The cost of calling
> > > bpf prog is not really that much / signficant at the
> > > migration code path.  If the queue is somehow
> > > unusally long, there is already an existing
> > > cond_resched() in inet_csk_listen_stop().
> > > 
> > > Then, instead of adding sk_reuseport_md->migration,
> > > it can then add sk_reuseport_md->migrate_sk.
> > > "migrate_sk = req" for in-progress req and "migrate_sk = child"
> > > for iterating acceptq.  The bpf_prog can then tell what sk (req or child)
> > > it is migrating by reading migrate_sk->state.  It can then also
> > > learn the 4 tuples src/dst ip/port while skb is missing.
> > > The sk_reuseport_md->sk can still point to the closed sk
> > > such that the bpf prog can learn the cookie.
> > > 
> > > I suspect a few things between BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_MIGRATE_REQUEST
> > > and BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_MIGRATE_QUEUE can be folded together
> > > by doing the above.  It also gives a more consistent
> > > interface for the bpf prog, no more MIGRATE_QUEUE vs MIGRATE_REQUEST.
> > 
> > I think this is really nice idea. Also, I tried to implement random-pick
> > one by one in inet_csk_listen_stop() yesterday, I found a concern about how
> > to handle requests in TFO queue.
> > 
> > The request can be already accepted, so passing it to eBPF prog is
> > confusing? But, redistributing randomly can affect all listeners
> > unnecessary. How should we handle such requests?
> 
> I've implemented one-by-one migration only for the accept queue for now.
> In addition to the concern about TFO queue,
You meant this queue:  queue->fastopenq.rskq_rst_head?
Can "req" be passed?
I did not look up the lock/race in details for that though.

> I want to discuss which should
> we pass NULL or request_sock to eBPF program as migrate_sk when selecting a
> listener for SYN ?
hmmm... not sure I understand your question.

You meant the existing lookup listener case from inet_lhash2_lookup()?
There is nothing to migrate at that point, so NULL makes sense to me.
migrate_sk's type should be PTR_TO_SOCK_COMMON_OR_NULL.

> 
> ---8<---
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> index a82fd4c912be..d0ddd3cb988b 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> @@ -1001,6 +1001,29 @@ struct sock *inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add(struct sock *sk,
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add);
>  
> +static bool inet_csk_reqsk_queue_migrate(struct sock *sk, struct sock *nsk, struct request_sock *req)
> +{
> +       struct request_sock_queue *queue = &inet_csk(nsk)->icsk_accept_queue;
> +       bool migrated = false;
> +
> +       spin_lock(&queue->rskq_lock);
> +       if (likely(nsk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN)) {
> +               migrated = true;
> +
> +               req->dl_next = NULL;
> +               if (queue->rskq_accept_head == NULL)
> +                       WRITE_ONCE(queue->rskq_accept_head, req);
> +               else
> +                       queue->rskq_accept_tail->dl_next = req;
> +               queue->rskq_accept_tail = req;
> +               sk_acceptq_added(nsk);
> +               inet_csk_reqsk_queue_migrated(sk, nsk, req);
need to first resolve the question raised in patch 5 regarding
to the update on req->rsk_listener though.

> +       }
> +       spin_unlock(&queue->rskq_lock);
> +
> +       return migrated;
> +}
> +
>  struct sock *inet_csk_complete_hashdance(struct sock *sk, struct sock *child,
>                                          struct request_sock *req, bool own_req)
>  {
> @@ -1023,9 +1046,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(inet_csk_complete_hashdance);
>   */
>  void inet_csk_listen_stop(struct sock *sk)
>  {
> +       struct sock_reuseport *reuseport_cb = rcu_access_pointer(sk->sk_reuseport_cb);
>         struct inet_connection_sock *icsk = inet_csk(sk);
>         struct request_sock_queue *queue = &icsk->icsk_accept_queue;
>         struct request_sock *next, *req;
> +       struct sock *nsk;
>  
>         /* Following specs, it would be better either to send FIN
>          * (and enter FIN-WAIT-1, it is normal close)
> @@ -1043,8 +1068,19 @@ void inet_csk_listen_stop(struct sock *sk)
>                 WARN_ON(sock_owned_by_user(child));
>                 sock_hold(child);
>  
> +               if (reuseport_cb) {
> +                       nsk = reuseport_select_migrated_sock(sk, req_to_sk(req)->sk_hash, NULL);
> +                       if (nsk) {
> +                               if (inet_csk_reqsk_queue_migrate(sk, nsk, req))
> +                                       goto unlock_sock;
> +                               else
> +                                       sock_put(nsk);
> +                       }
> +               }
> +
>                 inet_child_forget(sk, req, child);
>                 reqsk_put(req);
> +unlock_sock:
>                 bh_unlock_sock(child);
>                 local_bh_enable();
>                 sock_put(child);
> ---8<---
> 
> 
> > > >   5. lock the accept queue of the new listener
> > > >   6. splice requests and increment refcount
> > > >   7. unlock
> > > > 
> > > > Also, I think splicing is better to keep the order of requests. Adding one
> > > > by one reverses it.
> > > It can keep the order but I think it is orthogonal here.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists