Date:   Fri, 28 May 2021 09:31:48 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org
Cc:     will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        mst@...hat.com, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ptr_ring: make __ptr_ring_empty() checking more
 reliable


在 2021/5/27 下午5:03, Yunsheng Lin 写道:
> On 2021/5/27 16:05, Jason Wang wrote:
>> 在 2021/5/27 下午3:21, Yunsheng Lin 写道:
>>> On 2021/5/27 14:53, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> 在 2021/5/27 下午2:07, Yunsheng Lin 写道:
>>>>> On 2021/5/27 12:57, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> 在 2021/5/26 下午8:29, Yunsheng Lin 写道:
>>>>>>> Currently r->queue[] is cleared after r->consumer_head is moved
>>>>>>> forward, which makes the __ptr_ring_empty() checking called in
>>>>>>> page_pool_refill_alloc_cache() unreliable if the checking is done
>>>>>>> after the r->queue clearing and before the consumer_head moving
>>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Move the r->queue[] clearing after consumer_head moving forward
>>>>>>> to make __ptr_ring_empty() checking more reliable.
>>>>>> If I understand this correctly, this can only happens if you run __ptr_ring_empty() in parallel with ptr_ring_discard_one().
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think those two needs to be serialized. Or did I miss anything?
>>>>> As the below comment in __ptr_ring_discard_one, if the above is true, I
>>>>> do not think we need to keep consumer_head valid at all times, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       /* Note: we must keep consumer_head valid at all times for __ptr_ring_empty
>>>>>        * to work correctly.
>>>>>        */
>>>> I'm not sure I understand. But my point is that you need to synchronize the __ptr_ring_discard_one() and __ptr_empty() as explained in the comment above __ptr_ring_empty():
>>> I am saying if __ptr_ring_empty() and __ptr_ring_discard_one() is
>>> always serialized, then it seems that the below commit is unnecessary?
>>
>> Just to make sure we are at the same page. What I really meant is "synchronized" not "serialized". So they can be called at the same time but need synchronization.
>>
>>
>>> 406de7555424 ("ptr_ring: keep consumer_head valid at all times")
>>
>> This still needed in this case.
>>
>>
>>>> /*
>>>>    * Test ring empty status without taking any locks.
>>>>    *
>>>>    * NB: This is only safe to call if ring is never resized.
>>>>    *
>>>>    * However, if some other CPU consumes ring entries at the same time, the value
>>>>    * returned is not guaranteed to be correct.
>>>>    *
>>>>    * In this case - to avoid incorrectly detecting the ring
>>>>    * as empty - the CPU consuming the ring entries is responsible
>>>>    * for either consuming all ring entries until the ring is empty,
>>>>    * or synchronizing with some other CPU and causing it to
>>>>    * re-test __ptr_ring_empty and/or consume the ring enteries
>>>>    * after the synchronization point.
>>> I am not sure I understand "incorrectly detecting the ring as empty"
>>> means, is it because of the data race described in the commit log?
>>
>> It means "the ring might be empty but __ptr_ring_empty() returns false".
> But the ring might be non-empty but __ptr_ring_empty() returns true
> for the data race described in the commit log:)


Which commit log?


>
>>
>>> Or other data race? I can not think of other data race if consuming
>>> and __ptr_ring_empty() is serialized:)
>>>
>>> I am agreed that __ptr_ring_empty() checking is not totally reliable
>>> without taking r->consumer_lock, that is why I use "more reliable"
>>> in the title:)
>>
>> Is __ptr_ring_empty() synchronized with the consumer in your case? If yes, have you done some benchmark to see the difference?
>>
>> Have a look at page pool, this only helps when multiple refill request happens in parallel which can make some of the refill return early if the ring has been consumed.
>>
>> This is the slow-path and I'm not sure we see any difference. If one the request runs faster then the following request will go through the fast path.
> Yes, I am agreed there may not be any difference.
> But it is better to make it more reliable, right?


No, any performance optimization must be benchmark to show obvious 
difference to be accepted.

ptr_ring has been used by various subsystems so we should not risk our 
self-eves to accept theoretical optimizations.


>
>> If it really helps, can we do it more simpler by:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
>> index 808f9d3ee546..c3a72dc77337 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
>> @@ -264,6 +264,10 @@ static inline void __ptr_ring_discard_one(struct ptr_ring *r)
>>          int consumer_head = r->consumer_head;
>>          int head = consumer_head++;
>>
>> +        /* matching READ_ONCE in __ptr_ring_empty for lockless tests */
>> +       WRITE_ONCE(r->consumer_head,
>> +                   consumer_head < r->size ? consumer_head : 0);
>> +
>>          /* Once we have processed enough entries invalidate them in
>>           * the ring all at once so producer can reuse their space in the ring.
>>           * We also do this when we reach end of the ring - not mandatory
>> @@ -281,11 +285,8 @@ static inline void __ptr_ring_discard_one(struct ptr_ring *r)
>>                  r->consumer_tail = consumer_head;
>>          }
>>          if (unlikely(consumer_head >= r->size)) {
> What I am thinking is that we can remove the above testing for
> the likely case when the above checking is moved into the body
> of "if (unlikely(consumer_head - r->consumer_tail >= r->batch ||
> consumer_head >= r->size))".
>
> Or is there any specific reason why we keep the testing for likely
> case?


No reason but any optimization must be tested to show differences before 
being accepted.

Thanks


>
>
>> -               consumer_head = 0;
>>                  r->consumer_tail = 0;
>>          }
>> -       /* matching READ_ONCE in __ptr_ring_empty for lockless tests */
>> -       WRITE_ONCE(r->consumer_head, consumer_head);
>>   }
>>
>>   static inline void *__ptr_ring_consume(struct ptr_ring *r)
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>    *
>>>>    * Note: callers invoking this in a loop must use a compiler barrier,
>>>>    * for example cpu_relax().
>>>>    */
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> .
>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists