netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: optimize ____napi_schedule() to avoid extra NET_RX

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: <CANn89iLmugenUSDAQT9ryHTG9tRuKUfYgc8OqPMQwVv-1-ajNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2023 17:47:56 +0200
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: optimize ____napi_schedule() to avoid
 extra NET_RX_SOFTIRQ

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 2:47 PM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023/3/29 7:50, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > ____napi_schedule() adds a napi into current cpu softnet_data poll_list,
> > then raises NET_RX_SOFTIRQ to make sure net_rx_action() will process it.
> >
> > Idea of this patch is to not raise NET_RX_SOFTIRQ when being called indirectly
> > from net_rx_action(), because we can process poll_list from this point,
> > without going to full softirq loop.
> >
> > This needs a change in net_rx_action() to make sure we restart
> > its main loop if sd->poll_list was updated without NET_RX_SOFTIRQ
> > being raised.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> > ---
> >  net/core/dev.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> > index f34ce93f2f02e7ec71f5e84d449fa99b7a882f0c..0c4b21291348d4558f036fb05842dab023f65dc3 100644
> > --- a/net/core/dev.c
> > +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> > @@ -4360,7 +4360,11 @@ static inline void ____napi_schedule(struct softnet_data *sd,
> >       }
> >
> >       list_add_tail(&napi->poll_list, &sd->poll_list);
> > -     __raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ);
> > +     /* If not called from net_rx_action()
> > +      * we have to raise NET_RX_SOFTIRQ.
> > +      */
> > +     if (!sd->in_net_rx_action)
>
> It seems sd->in_net_rx_action may be read/writen by different CPUs at the same
> time, does it need something like READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() to access
> sd->in_net_rx_action?

You probably missed the 2nd patch, explaining the in_net_rx_action is
only read and written by the current (owning the percpu var) cpu.

Have you found a caller that is not providing to ____napi_schedule( sd
= this_cpu_ptr(&softnet_data)) ?



>
> > +             __raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ);
> >  }
> >
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_RPS
> > @@ -6648,6 +6652,7 @@ static __latent_entropy void net_rx_action(struct softirq_action *h)
> >       LIST_HEAD(list);
> >       LIST_HEAD(repoll);
> >
> > +start:
> >       sd->in_net_rx_action = true;
> >       local_irq_disable();
> >       list_splice_init(&sd->poll_list, &list);
> > @@ -6659,9 +6664,18 @@ static __latent_entropy void net_rx_action(struct softirq_action *h)
> >               skb_defer_free_flush(sd);
> >
> >               if (list_empty(&list)) {
> > -                     sd->in_net_rx_action = false;
> > -                     if (!sd_has_rps_ipi_waiting(sd) && list_empty(&repoll))
> > -                             goto end;
> > +                     if (list_empty(&repoll)) {
> > +                             sd->in_net_rx_action = false;
> > +                             barrier();
>
> Do we need a stronger barrier to prevent out-of-order execution
> from cpu?

We do not need more than barrier() to make sure local cpu wont move this
write after the following code.

It should not, even without the barrier(), because of the way
list_empty() is coded,
but a barrier() makes things a bit more explicit.

> Do we need a barrier between list_add_tail() and sd->in_net_rx_action
> checking in ____napi_schedule() to pair with the above barrier?

I do not think so.

While in ____napi_schedule(), sd->in_net_rx_action is stable
because we run with hardware IRQ masked.

Thanks.



>
> > +                             /* We need to check if ____napi_schedule()
> > +                              * had refilled poll_list while
> > +                              * sd->in_net_rx_action was true.
> > +                              */
> > +                             if (!list_empty(&sd->poll_list))
> > +                                     goto start;
> > +                             if (!sd_has_rps_ipi_waiting(sd))
> > +                                     goto end;
> > +                     }
> >                       break;
> >               }
> >
> >