netdev - [PATCH net-next v5 09/10] 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: <1669218890-115854-10-git-send-email-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 23:54:49 +0800
From:   "D.Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH net-next v5 09/10] net/smc: reduce unnecessary blocking in smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs()

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 338ae3f..e76109e 100644
--- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
+++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
@@ -512,11 +512,26 @@ static int smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs(struct smc_link *link,
 			     struct smc_buf_desc *rmb_desc)
 {
 	struct smc_link_group *lgr = link->lgr;
+	bool do_slow = false;
 	int i, rc = 0;
 
 	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:
+	do_slow = true;
 	/* protect against parallel smc_llc_cli_rkey_exchange() and
 	 * parallel smcr_link_reg_buf()
 	 */
@@ -528,7 +543,7 @@ 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) {
@@ -537,7 +552,7 @@ static int smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs(struct smc_link *link,
 	}
 	rmb_desc->is_conf_rkey = true;
 out:
-	up_write(&lgr->llc_conf_mutex);
+	do_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