netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 07/10] net/smc: reduce unnecessary blocking in smcr_lgr_reg

lists.openwall.net		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]

Message-ID: <YvtUTY3pAQJx0vcQ@TonyMac-Alibaba>
Date:   Tue, 16 Aug 2022 16:24:45 +0800
From:   Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 07/10] net/smc: reduce unnecessary blocking in
 smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs()

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 01:47:38AM +0800, D. Wythe wrote:
> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
> 
> Unlike smc_buf_create() and smcr_buf_unuse(), smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs() is
> exclusive when assigned rmb_desc was not registered, although it can be
> executed in parallel when assigned rmb_desc was registered already
> and only performs read semtamics on it. Hence, we can not simply replace
> it with read semaphore.
> 
> The idea here is that if the assigned rmb_desc was registered already,
> use read semaphore to protect the critical section, once the assigned
> rmb_desc was not registered, keep using keep write semaphore still
> to keep its exclusivity.
> 
> Thanks to the reusable features of rmb_desc, which allows us to execute
> in parallel in most cases.
> 
> Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  net/smc/af_smc.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> index 51b90e2..39dbf39 100644
> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> @@ -516,10 +516,25 @@ static int smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs(struct smc_link *link,
>  {
>  	struct smc_link_group *lgr = link->lgr;
>  	int i, rc = 0;
> +	bool slow = false;

Consider do_slow?

Reverse Christmas tree.

>  
>  	rc = smc_llc_flow_initiate(lgr, SMC_LLC_FLOW_RKEY);
>  	if (rc)
>  		return rc;
> +
> +	down_read(&lgr->llc_conf_mutex);
> +	for (i = 0; i < SMC_LINKS_PER_LGR_MAX; i++) {
> +		if (!smc_link_active(&lgr->lnk[i]))
> +			continue;
> +		if (!rmb_desc->is_reg_mr[link->link_idx]) {
> +			up_read(&lgr->llc_conf_mutex);
> +			goto slow_path;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	/* mr register already */
> +	goto fast_path;
> +slow_path:
> +	slow = true;
>  	/* protect against parallel smc_llc_cli_rkey_exchange() and
>  	 * parallel smcr_link_reg_buf()
>  	 */
> @@ -531,7 +546,7 @@ static int smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs(struct smc_link *link,
>  		if (rc)
>  			goto out;
>  	}
> -
> +fast_path:
>  	/* exchange confirm_rkey msg with peer */
>  	rc = smc_llc_do_confirm_rkey(link, rmb_desc);
>  	if (rc) {
> @@ -540,7 +555,7 @@ static int smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs(struct smc_link *link,
>  	}
>  	rmb_desc->is_conf_rkey = true;
>  out:
> -	up_write(&lgr->llc_conf_mutex);
> +	slow ? up_write(&lgr->llc_conf_mutex) : up_read(&lgr->llc_conf_mutex);
>  	smc_llc_flow_stop(lgr, &lgr->llc_flow_lcl);
>  	return rc;
>  }
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1