[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b18fdfc3-987d-9351-ca6c-5d4cb2d71af1@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 09:51:39 -0700
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] Use call_rcu_hurry() with synchronize_rcu_mult()
On 5/18/23 7:47 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The bpf_struct_ops_map_free() function must wait for both an RCU grace
> period and an RCU Tasks grace period, and so it passes call_rcu() and
> call_rcu_tasks() to synchronize_rcu_mult(). This works, but on ChromeOS
> and Android platforms call_rcu() can have lazy semantics, resulting in
> multi-second delays between call_rcu() invocation and invocation of the
> corresponding callback.
>
> Therefore, substitute call_rcu_hurry() for call_rcu().
My understanding on the net-effect is to free up the struct_ops resources faster.
I believe call_rcu() should be fine. struct_ops freeing should not happen very
often. For example, when a bpf written tcp congestion control (struct_ops) is
registered, it will stay in the kernel for a long time. A couple seconds delay
in releasing the struct_ops should be acceptable.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists