[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fb02ea12-7e37-4fdb-775e-824ba5d42ffd@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:21:23 +0200
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org
Cc: olteanv@...il.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
andriin@...com, edumazet@...gle.com, weiwan@...gle.com,
cong.wang@...edance.com, ap420073@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxarm@...neuler.org, mkl@...gutronix.de,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, andrii@...nel.org,
kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
jonas.bonn@...rounds.com, pabeni@...hat.com, mzhivich@...mai.com,
johunt@...mai.com, albcamus@...il.com, kehuan.feng@...il.com,
a.fatoum@...gutronix.de, atenart@...nel.org,
alexander.duyck@...il.com, Jiri Kosina <JKosina@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: sched: fix packet stuck problem for lockless
qdisc
On 12.04.21 03:04, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2021/4/9 13:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 25.03.21 04:13, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>>> Lockless qdisc has below concurrent problem:
>>> cpu0 cpu1
>>> . .
>>> q->enqueue .
>>> . .
>>> qdisc_run_begin() .
>>> . .
>>> dequeue_skb() .
>>> . .
>>> sch_direct_xmit() .
>>> . .
>>> . q->enqueue
>>> . qdisc_run_begin()
>>> . return and do nothing
>>> . .
>>> qdisc_run_end() .
>>>
>>> cpu1 enqueue a skb without calling __qdisc_run() because cpu0
>>> has not released the lock yet and spin_trylock() return false
>>> for cpu1 in qdisc_run_begin(), and cpu0 do not see the skb
>>> enqueued by cpu1 when calling dequeue_skb() because cpu1 may
>>> enqueue the skb after cpu0 calling dequeue_skb() and before
>>> cpu0 calling qdisc_run_end().
>>>
>>> Lockless qdisc has below another concurrent problem when
>>> tx_action is involved:
>>>
>>> cpu0(serving tx_action) cpu1 cpu2
>>> . . .
>>> . q->enqueue .
>>> . qdisc_run_begin() .
>>> . dequeue_skb() .
>>> . . q->enqueue
>>> . . .
>>> . sch_direct_xmit() .
>>> . . qdisc_run_begin()
>>> . . return and do nothing
>>> . . .
>>> clear __QDISC_STATE_SCHED . .
>>> qdisc_run_begin() . .
>>> return and do nothing . .
>>> . . .
>>> . qdisc_run_end() .
>>>
>>> This patch fixes the above data race by:
>>> 1. Get the flag before doing spin_trylock().
>>> 2. If the first spin_trylock() return false and the flag is not
>>> set before the first spin_trylock(), Set the flag and retry
>>> another spin_trylock() in case other CPU may not see the new
>>> flag after it releases the lock.
>>> 3. reschedule if the flags is set after the lock is released
>>> at the end of qdisc_run_end().
>>>
>>> For tx_action case, the flags is also set when cpu1 is at the
>>> end if qdisc_run_end(), so tx_action will be rescheduled
>>> again to dequeue the skb enqueued by cpu2.
>>>
>>> Only clear the flag before retrying a dequeuing when dequeuing
>>> returns NULL in order to reduce the overhead of the above double
>>> spin_trylock() and __netif_schedule() calling.
>>>
>>> The performance impact of this patch, tested using pktgen and
>>> dummy netdev with pfifo_fast qdisc attached:
>>>
>>> threads without+this_patch with+this_patch delta
>>> 1 2.61Mpps 2.60Mpps -0.3%
>>> 2 3.97Mpps 3.82Mpps -3.7%
>>> 4 5.62Mpps 5.59Mpps -0.5%
>>> 8 2.78Mpps 2.77Mpps -0.3%
>>> 16 2.22Mpps 2.22Mpps -0.0%
>>>
>>> Fixes: 6b3ba9146fe6 ("net: sched: allow qdiscs to handle locking")
>>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
>>
>> I have a setup which is able to reproduce the issue quite reliably:
>>
>> In a Xen guest I'm mounting 8 NFS shares and run sysbench fileio on
>> each of them. The average latency reported by sysbench is well below
>> 1 msec, but at least once per hour I get latencies in the minute
>> range.
>>
>> With this patch I don't see these high latencies any longer (test
>> is running for more than 20 hours now).
>>
>> So you can add my:
>>
>> Tested-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
>
> Hi, Juergen
>
> Thanks for the testing.
>
> With the simulated test case suggested by Michal, I still has some
> potential issue to debug, hopefully will send out new version in
> this week.
>
> Also, is it possible to run your testcase any longer? I think "72 hours"
> would be enough to testify that it fixes the problem completely:)
This should be possible, yes.
I'm using the setup to catch another bug which is showing up every few
days. I don't see a reason why I shouldn't be able to add your patch
and verify it in parallel.
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3092 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists