netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: tsq: avoid using a tasklet if possible

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANn89i+S0_qL_1Xy6J6Q9D1-vMFSCEUZDQh8f+8C9Q8e5n=rLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2023 05:37:15 +0200
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: tsq: avoid using a tasklet if possible

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 10:08 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 19:25:34 +0000 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Instead of always defer TCP Small Queue handling to a tasklet
> > we can try to lock the socket and immediately call tcp_tsq_handler()
> >
> > In my experiments on a 100Gbit NIC with FQ qdisc, number of times
> > tcp_tasklet_func() is fired per second goes from ~70,000 to ~1,000.
> >
> > This reduces number of ksoftirqd wakeups and thus extra cpu
> > costs and latencies.
>
> Oh, you posted already. LMK what you think about other locks,
> I reckon we should apply this patch... just maybe around -rc1
> to give ourselves plenty of time to find the broken drivers?

Agreed, this can wait.

I will post a v2 RFC with the additional logic, then I will audit
napi_consume_skb() callers.
(BTW this logic removes one indirect call to tcp_wfree())

Thanks

diff --git a/include/net/tcp.h b/include/net/tcp.h
index a0a91a988272710470cd20f22e02e49476513239..7efdda889b001fdd2cb941e40d1318a6b80b78bb
100644
--- a/include/net/tcp.h
+++ b/include/net/tcp.h
@@ -339,6 +339,7 @@ int tcp_send_mss(struct sock *sk, int *size_goal,
int flags);
 void tcp_push(struct sock *sk, int flags, int mss_now, int nonagle,
              int size_goal);
 void tcp_release_cb(struct sock *sk);
+void __tcp_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb, bool trylock);
 void tcp_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb);
 void tcp_write_timer_handler(struct sock *sk);
 void tcp_delack_timer_handler(struct sock *sk);
diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
index 050a875d09c5535e0cb2e52c9c65f3febd0385d6..2b09c247721144696a937a928a7b8af7f1ad01db
100644
--- a/net/core/skbuff.c
+++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
@@ -1242,6 +1242,9 @@ void napi_skb_free_stolen_head(struct sk_buff *skb)
        napi_skb_cache_put(skb);
 }

+/*
+ * Note: callers must not lock the TX queue.
+ */
 void napi_consume_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, int budget)
 {
        /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */
@@ -1260,6 +1263,10 @@ void napi_consume_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, int budget)

        /* if SKB is a clone, don't handle this case */
        if (skb->fclone != SKB_FCLONE_UNAVAILABLE) {
+               if (skb->destructor == tcp_wfree) {
+                       __tcp_wfree(skb, true);
+                       skb->destructor = NULL;
+               }
                __kfree_skb(skb);
                return;
        }
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
index 470bb840bb6b6fb457f96d5c00fdfd11b414482f..63ff79f92a2d44c403bd521850875839f18a0c20
100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
@@ -1139,7 +1139,7 @@ void __init tcp_tasklet_init(void)
  * We can't xmit new skbs from this context, as we might already
  * hold qdisc lock.
  */
-void tcp_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb)
+void __tcp_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb, bool trylock)
 {
        struct sock *sk = skb->sk;
        struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
@@ -1171,7 +1171,7 @@ void tcp_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb)
        } while (!try_cmpxchg(&sk->sk_tsq_flags, &oval, nval));

        /* attempt to grab socket lock. */
-       if (spin_trylock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock)) {
+       if (trylock && spin_trylock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock)) {
                clear_bit(TSQ_QUEUED, &sk->sk_tsq_flags);
                tcp_tsq_handler_locked(sk);
                spin_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
@@ -1190,6 +1190,11 @@ void tcp_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb)
        sk_free(sk);
 }

+void tcp_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+       __tcp_wfree(skb, false);
+}
+
 /* Note: Called under soft irq.
  * We can call TCP stack right away, unless socket is owned by user.
  */