Date:   Sun, 27 Jun 2021 02:03:56 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, jasowang@...hat.com,
        brouer@...hat.com, paulmck@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        will@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxarm@...neuler.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] ptr_ring: make __ptr_ring_empty()
 checking more reliable

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 04:33:40PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2021/6/25 15:30, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 03:21:33PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >> On 2021/6/25 14:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 11:18:56AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Well the documentation for __ptr_ring_empty clearly states is
> >>> is not guaranteed to be reliable.
> >>
> >> Yes, this patch does not make __ptr_ring_empty() strictly reliable
> >> without taking the r->consumer_lock, as the disscuission in [1].
> >>
> >> 1. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/1622032173-11883-1-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com/#24207011
> >>
> >>>
> >>>  *
> >>>  * 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.
> >>>  *
> >>>
> >>> Is it then the case that page_pool_refill_alloc_cache violates
> >>> this requirement? How?
> >>
> >> As my understanding:
> >> page_pool_refill_alloc_cache() uses __ptr_ring_empty() to avoid
> >> taking r->consumer_lock, when the above data race happens, it will
> >> exit out and allocate page from the page allocator instead of reusing
> >> the page in ptr_ring, which *may* not be happening if __ptr_ring_empty()
> >> is more reliable.
> > 
> > Question is how do we know it's more reliable?
> > It would be nice if we did actually made it more reliable,
> > as it is we are just shifting races around.
> > 
> > 
> >>>
> >>> It looks like you are trying to make the guarantee stronger and ensure
> >>> no false positives.
> >>>
> >>> If yes please document this as such, update the comment so all
> >>> code can be evaluated with the eye towards whether the new stronger
> >>> guarantee is maintained. In particular I think I see at least one
> >>> issue with this immediately.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Move the r->queue[] clearing after consumer_head moving forward
> >>>> to make __ptr_ring_empty() checking more reliable.
> >>>>
> >>>> As a side effect of above change, a consumer_head checking is
> >>>> avoided for the likely case, and it has noticeable performance
> >>>> improvement when it is tested using the ptr_ring_test selftest
> >>>> added in the previous patch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Using "taskset -c 1 ./ptr_ring_test -s 1000 -m 0 -N 100000000"
> >>>> to test the case of single thread doing both the enqueuing and
> >>>> dequeuing:
> >>>>
> >>>>  arch     unpatched           patched       delta
> >>>> arm64      4648 ms            4464 ms       +3.9%
> >>>>  X86       2562 ms            2401 ms       +6.2%
> >>>>
> >>>> Using "taskset -c 1-2 ./ptr_ring_test -s 1000 -m 1 -N 100000000"
> >>>> to test the case of one thread doing enqueuing and another thread
> >>>> doing dequeuing concurrently, also known as single-producer/single-
> >>>> consumer:
> >>>>
> >>>>  arch      unpatched             patched         delta
> >>>> arm64   3624 ms + 3624 ms   3462 ms + 3462 ms    +4.4%
> >>>>  x86    2758 ms + 2758 ms   2547 ms + 2547 ms    +7.6%
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> V2: Add performance data.
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  include/linux/ptr_ring.h | 25 ++++++++++++++++---------
> >>>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> >>>> index 808f9d3..db9c282 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> >>>> @@ -261,8 +261,7 @@ static inline void __ptr_ring_discard_one(struct ptr_ring *r)
> >>>>  	/* Note: we must keep consumer_head valid at all times for __ptr_ring_empty
> >>>>  	 * to work correctly.
> >>>>  	 */
> >>>> -	int consumer_head = r->consumer_head;
> >>>> -	int head = consumer_head++;
> >>>> +	int consumer_head = r->consumer_head + 1;
> >>>>  
> >>>>  	/* Once we have processed enough entries invalidate them in
> >>>>  	 * the ring all at once so producer can reuse their space in the ring.
> >>>> @@ -271,19 +270,27 @@ static inline void __ptr_ring_discard_one(struct ptr_ring *r)
> >>>>  	 */
> >>>>  	if (unlikely(consumer_head - r->consumer_tail >= r->batch ||
> >>>>  		     consumer_head >= r->size)) {
> >>>> +		int tail = r->consumer_tail;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +		if (unlikely(consumer_head >= r->size)) {
> >>>> +			r->consumer_tail = 0;
> >>>> +			WRITE_ONCE(r->consumer_head, 0);
> >>>> +		} else {
> >>>> +			r->consumer_tail = consumer_head;
> >>>> +			WRITE_ONCE(r->consumer_head, consumer_head);
> >>>> +		}
> >>>> +
> >>>>  		/* Zero out entries in the reverse order: this way we touch the
> >>>>  		 * cache line that producer might currently be reading the last;
> >>>>  		 * producer won't make progress and touch other cache lines
> >>>>  		 * besides the first one until we write out all entries.
> >>>>  		 */
> >>>> -		while (likely(head >= r->consumer_tail))
> >>>> -			r->queue[head--] = NULL;
> >>>> -		r->consumer_tail = consumer_head;
> >>>> -	}
> >>>> -	if (unlikely(consumer_head >= r->size)) {
> >>>> -		consumer_head = 0;
> >>>> -		r->consumer_tail = 0;
> >>>> +		while (likely(--consumer_head >= tail))
> >>>> +			r->queue[consumer_head] = NULL;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +		return;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So if now we need this to be reliable then
> >>> we also need smp_wmb before writing r->queue[consumer_head],
> >>> there could be other gotchas.
> >>
> >> Yes, This patch does not make it strictly reliable.
> >> T think I could mention that in the commit log?
> > 
> > OK so it's not that it makes it more reliable - this patch simply makes
> > a possible false positive less likely while making  a false negative
> > more likely. Our assumption is that a false negative is cheaper then?
> > 
> > How do we know that it is?
> > 
> > And even if we prove the ptr_ring itself is faster now,
> > how do we know what affects callers in a better way a
> > false positive or a false negative?
> > 
> > I would rather we worked on actually making it reliable
> > e.g. if we can guarantee no false positives, that would be
> > a net win.
> I thought deeper about the case you mentioned above, it
> seems for the above to happen, the consumer_head need to
> be rolled back to zero and incremented to the point when
> caller of __ptr_ring_empty() is still *not* able to see the
> r->queue[] which has been set to NULL in __ptr_ring_discard_one().
> 
> It seems smp_wmb() only need to be done once when consumer_head
> is rolled back to zero, and maybe that is enough to make sure the
> case you mentioned is fixed too?
> 
> And the smp_wmb() is only done once in a round of producing/
> consuming, so the performance impact should be minimized?(of
> course we need to test it too).


Sorry I don't really understand the question here.
I think I agree it's enough to do one smp_wmb between
the write of r->queue and write of consumer_head
to help guarantee no false positives.
What other code changes are necessary I can't yet say
without more a deeper code review.

> > 
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>  	}
> >>>> +
> >>>>  	/* matching READ_ONCE in __ptr_ring_empty for lockless tests */
> >>>>  	WRITE_ONCE(r->consumer_head, consumer_head);
> >>>>  }
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> 2.7.4
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > 
> > 
> > .
> > 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists